P. 1
First Defendant's Admission of Facts

First Defendant's Admission of Facts

|Views: 1.032|Likes:
Publicado porThe Guardian

More info:

Published by: The Guardian on Feb 28, 2012
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/17/2013

pdf

text

original

iN THE HlGH COURT OF JUSTICE ,GJ4NCERY D(VIS!

ON

VARIOUS

ClA.lMANTS

(iiswd in the S©h®d~i@h®r@t©)
~ ~i1cl
Q

(it NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS
(2) GLENN MlCHAEl

lTD MUL-CAIRE

ADMISS~ON Of FACTS
CPR PAR132.18

The First Defendant

makes the admissions below in response to the Cfaimants' Notice

to Admit Facts served on 29 November 2011 ethe Notice to Admin. In accordance with CPR Part 3.2,'18(3), these admissions are made on the basts that
and by the

they may be used against the First Defendant Claimants

only in these proceedings

who served the Notice to Adm!t, and that they may not be used on any or by any other person or

other occasion

tor

any other purpose"

These admissions

should not be taken to be acceptance

that any conduct

relating to the matters set out

below can be proven to the criminal standard.

Paragraph

numbers used below are the same £'IS those in the Notice to Admit

(a)

In or about 2001 the Second Defendant

entered

into an arrangement

with the First Defendant 1M respect of the News of the World

nne

Arrangement")
to obtain,

under the terms of which the Second Defendant agreed information about specific individuals and third

on request,

parties connected

to them, such as their family and/or friends and/or

colleagues.

I 'it

(0)

The

Second

Defendant

used

various

methods to obtain

such

lnformatlon, which included both !avl/fur and unlawful means. The unla.vvfu! means used by the Second Defendant mobile phone voicemall messages, included intercepting

2.

The Arrangement {as defined at paragraph 1(a} above) continued wnW the arrest of the Second Defendant on 8 Auoust 200(5. ""

3.

The First Defendant and the Second Defendant (or companies controUed by him) entered into the foUowing written agreements:

(a)

6 June 2001: a confidentiality agreement between the First Defendant
(signed by Journalist A .. referred to in the ConfidEmtia! Schedule to these Admissions) and the Second Defendant (In the name "Paul Wmiam~n concerning Second Defendant the provision of confidential information by the

(b)

1 September 2001:

Gl

contract between the

NffWS

of the World (signed

by Journalist A) and Euro Research and Information Services Limited (a company controlled by the Second Defendant) for a period of 12 months. Under this contract the Second Defendant was paid £176!~L23 per week: £9.2,000 per annum. 1 September 2002: a contract between the News of the World (signed by Journalist A) and Euro Research and Information Services for a further period of 12 mornhs. Under this contractthe Second Defendant was paid £176~t23per week: £92,000 per annum. (d) 23 July 2003: an "Addendum~ by which the News af the World (signed by Journalist A), agreed to pay the Second Defendant an extra £250 per week, making the total weeldy remuneration service covering £2,019 for an extended plus

(c)

g,OOam to 5JJOpm Mondays to Fridays,

emergency calls outside these hours.
(e) 4 February 2005: contract between the Second Defendant (in the

fit

name uPaul Wimamt!n and the News of the World to p~y at lea$i £7,000

to the Second Defendant on the pubHcaHon of an exclusive

story about

Gordon TayloL (f)
1 July 2005: a contract between Nine Consultancy limited (8 company

controUed by the Second Defendant) and the News of the World (signed
by Journalist

C ~ referred to in the C{:mficisl1tra! Schedule to these

Admissions) for a period of 12 months from 1 Jury 2005" Under this agreement the Second Defendant was paid £2,019 per week, £104,988 per annum.

(g)

4 March 2006; an email from Journalist B (referred to In the Confidentiaf Schedule to these Admissions) to the Second' Defendant extending the
agreement of '1 July 2005 until 2007,

The services

provided

by the Second Defendant

were

evidenced

by and

provided (at least in part) under these agreements,

4,

The purpose of the Arrangement (as defined at paragraph 1(8) above) was the obtarning of information

by the Second Defendant concerning
with a view to such information

lf1divk:luals of

interest to the News of the World, and to supply information of the World journalists, Investigation, preparation

obtained to News being used in the

and writing of articles to be published

tn

the

News of

the World. The methods used by the Second Defendant
and unlawful means.

included both lawful

50

The First Defendant the Schedule

and its related companies

made the payments

set out in

of Payments

attached to these Aormssons to the Second

Defendant 60
Payments Confidential payment

Of'

his associated companies.
by the individuals
named In paragraph 6 of the a

were authorised Schedule to

these AdmiSSions. The individual
know any details

authorising

would

not necessarily

of the payment

including

whether the payment was in respect of information which had been obtained

by

Lmlawfuf means ..

3

T,

One of the methods used by the Second Defendant to obtain fnformatk:m was the interception of votceman messages. The Second Defendant provided information about some of the voicemall messages which he had intercepted to Journalists at the News of the World. The information provided by the Second Defendant sometimes included transcripts of volcemat' messepes.

4

9,

The methods used by the Second Defendant to obtain mobae telephone numbers induded the fcHewing:

(a)

From News of the WQr!djoumallst~, or

(b)

From mobile telephone companies by "blagging~, or

(c)

From "blagging" carried out by other private investigators used by the News of the World, or

(d)

By rnterrepting
World,

vOlcemall messages of members

of the family and/or

friends, and/or colleagues of the individual of Interest to the News of the

10.

III the case of Vodafone and 02 the Second Defendant obtained DDNs:

(a)
(b)

From mobiletelephone companiesby Ub!agging", or
From Ublagging" carried out by other private investigators News of the World. used by the

12.

5

13.

The Second Defendant used several different mobHe phones and 81m cards to

intercept volcemall messages.
14. The Second Defendant noted the names of individuals whom he was investigating in his notebooks and on his computer, The names noted by the Second Defendant were not aU victims of volcemas

15<

intercepnon or other forms of mega! information gathering.
16. The Second Defendant assisted News of the World joumaHsts to obtain information by unlawful means by providing them with mobile telephone numbers, direct dla! numbers, PIN numbers and other information in order to
enable the journansts themselves to intercept voiremaU messages.

17.

Volcernaa messages were on occasion intercepted by journallsts working on the News of the World using informatIon provided by the Second Defendant

18,

Clive Goodman and Joumalists Ell 0 and E (set out in paragraph 18 of the Confidential Schedule to these Admissions) Intercepted voicemail messages

using information provided by the Second Defendant

19.

The Arrangement (as defined at paragraph 1(a) above) was originaUy entered into between Journalist A on behalf of the First Defendant and the Second Defendant

20,

Journalist A was the Second Defendant's primary point of contact with the First Defendant Ul1tH July 20050

21.

Journalist

A. an employee of the First Defendant, instructed the Second
number of occasions.

Defendant to obtain information, jncluding by means of voicernail interception, on a large but unquantffiable 22.

Journalist B was the Second Defendant's primary point of contact with the First
Defendant beWJ6EHl July 2005 and August 2006.

23.

JoumaUst S, an employee of the First Def@ndant, instructed the Second Defendant to obtain information, including by means of voicemail interception

on a large but unquantflable number of occasions, 24. Joumalist C, an employee of the First Defendant, Instructed the Second Defendant to obtain !nfofl11ation, including by means of vo!cemaH interception, on a large but unquantffiable 25, Journalist
Defendant

number of

OC08$10I1s.

D, en employee of the First Defendant, instructed the Second
to obtain information,

Induding by means of volcemall

interceptkm,

on a large but unquanfiflable number of oceesions.

7

26,

Clive Goodman, an employee

of the First Defendant,

instructed the Second

Defendant to obtain information, including by means of voicemaH interception 011an LH1quantlfiab!e number of occasions. The services provided by the Second Defendant, including the interception of volcemaf messages, were known about amongst a number of the First

27,

Defendant's employees at the News of the Worf&
28, The employees of the First Defendant listed in paragraph 28 of the Confidential Schedule to these Adntlssions were aware of or involved in the Arrangement (as defined at paragraph 1(8) above).

29.

information of the following types was provided by the Second Defendant to News of the World journalists:

(a)

Informationabout mobile numbers;

(b) (c)

information about the contents of messages; Information about who had beer. communicating with whom;

(d)

lnformation about the time, duration and dates of communications:

(e)

information about the locatons, movements and proposed movements of targeted individuals and third parties connected to them.

30,

information was communicated

to News of the World Journalists by the Second

Defendant by email, telephone and text message,

31,

~l'1formation,including information uniawfuHy obtained by the Second Defendant
and/or by the First Defendant's employees using information supplied to them employed by the Second Defendant, was used to enable pr!vate investigators

by the NeWS of the World to monitor, locate and track individuals to place them under surveillance.

11,1

32,

Information was used to provide instructions to Derek Webb, including the following Claimants and former Claimants: (a) Andy Gray

a private

investigator, who placed a large number of individuals under surveiHance

(b)

Ashley Cole

(c)
(d)

Lee Chapman

Paul Gascoigne

(e)

8Jenna Miner

(t)

Gordon Taylor

33,

!nformanon,

induding

information

unla\flfully

obtained

by

the

Second

Defendant, was provided to journalists, photographers and editorial staff at the

News of the World for use in the research, preparation and writing of articles.
34" Such information was, from time to time, included in stories published in the
News of the World.

35.

Between 1 January 2005 and 9 August 2006, the Second

Defendant

intercepted voicemail messages left on the mobHe telephone of Paddy Harveson, the Commu!1!cations Secretary to HJtH. the Prince of Wales and H,RH. the Duchess of ComwaH and provlded unlawfully to CHve Goodman on behalf of the First Defendant obtained fnformatkm

36.

Between 1 January

2005 and 9 August 2006, the Second

Defendant

intercepted voicemail messages feft on the mob!!e telephone of Helen Asprsy,
the Persona! Secretary to H,RH, Prince William and H.RJ-!' Prince Harry and

provided L.wi!awfullyobtained informatfon to Clive Goodman on beha~f of the First Defendant.

9

37.

Between 1 January 2005 and 9 August 2006, the Second Defendant intercepted voicemaU messages left on the mobile telephone of Jamie LowtherPinkerton, the Private Secretary to H.R.H. Prince WiWam and HJtH. Prince Harry and provided un!awfully obtained information to Clive Goodman on
behalf of the First Defendant.

38.

Between 16 February and 16 June 2006, the Second Defendant intercepted
volcemail

messages

left on the mobile telephone of Max CHfford and provided

unlawfully obtained infolmatlon to the First Defendant

39.

Between 16 February and 16 June 2006, the Second Defendant Intercepted vclcemail messages left on the mooUs telephone of Gordon Taylor and

provided untawfuUy obtained information to the First Defendant

40.

Between 16 February and 16 June 2006r the Second Defendant intercepted voicemai! messages left on the mobile telephone of Sky Andrew and provided unfawfuHy obtained Inrorrt1ation to the First Defendant

41.

Between 16 February and 16 June 2006, the Second Defendant intercepted voicemall messages feft on the mobile telephone of Simon Hughes MP and provided un!awfuHy obtained information to the First Defendant

42~

Between

16 February

and 16 June 2006, the Second

Defendant

Intercepted

voicemall messages left on the mob tie telephone of EUe Macpherson and provided lm!awfuUy obtained Information to the First Defendant. 43. The Second Defendant intercepted valesmaU messages left on the mobile
telephone of Jo Armstrong and provided unlawfully obtained infom1ation to the

First Defendant,

44.

In 2005 and 2006 the Second Defendant intercepted .Voicemai! messages reft
011 the mobile telephone information information

of Andy Gray and provided un~awfuUy obtained
which then published an article based on this

to the First Defendant

in the News of the World.

45.

Between 2004 and 2006 the Second Defendant
messaqes left on the

intercepted
and

voicernail
provided

mobne telephone

of lee

Chapman

unlawfully obtained information to the First Defendant

,46.

Between 2004 and 2006 the Second Defendant
rnessspes left: 011 the mobile telephone

intercepted

voicemall
unlallVfully

of Leslie Ash and provided

obtained infomlation to the First Defendant

47,

Between March and July 2006 the Second Defendant intercepted volcemall
messages left: on the mobile telephone of David MHls and provided to the First Defendant. unlawfully

obtained information

48,

Between March and July 2006 the Second Defendant intercepted voicernail
messages left on the mobile telephone of Tessa Jewel! and provided unlawfully

obtained information to the First Defendant.

49.

SehNoon messages

July 2005 and Ju!y 2006 the Second Defendant intercepted vorcemai!
left on the mobile telephone of Slenna Miller and provided llnialfiffully

obtained information to the First Defendant which then published eleven
articles based on this information in the

News of the World.
intercepted
and

50,

Between 2004 and 2006 the Second Defendant
messages

volcemail
provided

reft on the mobile

telephone

of

Kalfy Hoppen

unlawfuUy obtained information

to the First Defendant

51,

On 22 June 2009, the mobile telephone belonging

to Journalist

E was used to

cal! Ms Hcppen's mobile telephone number on two occasions.
was at 09:26 hours and hours and

The fjrnt caH

it lasted 3 seconds,

The second

call was at 13:24 a

it lasted :25 seconds.

The second cal! generated

vOleeman raHed

access message.

11

I

52.

The First Defendant is unable to make any admission as to the state of
knowledge, motivation, or states of mind of the unidentified "senier employees and directors" referred to at paragraph 52 of the Notice to Admit, which are not

within its knowledge. Neither is it able to admit or deny the unparticularised
aHegations set out at paragrdphs admissions, 52(a} ~ (d), Without prejudice to those [100-

and sorely in the interests of the prompt and effk:;lenI determination of aggravated

of these claims, the First Defendant consents to the assessment

damages by the Court on the basis of the facts aHeged at paragraph 52.

53.

The facts set out in paragraphs 53 - 55 of the Notfce to Admit are not admitted.

Ian Felstead,

O!swang LLP. So!icltors for the First Defendant

DATE:

13 December 2011

12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->