CO/4182/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BETWEEN: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ELAINE MARIA DECOULOS

Claimant

and

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Defendant

____________________________________________ DEFENDANTS SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE ORAL PERMISSION HEARING ON 3 JULY 2012 ____________________________________________

Time estimate: 1 hour Essential reading: Skeleton arguments Claim Form 20 April 2012 Summary Grounds of Resistance 5 May 2012 Transcript of oral hearing: 3 April 2012: p.12, line 10 to p.25, line 8. Claimants supplementary written submission dated 5 April 2012 Defendants ruling dated 5 April 2012 Amended Application for Urgent Consideration 9 May 2012 Refusal of permission and interim relief, totally without merit, dated 9 May 2012 Application for injunction 29 May 2012 Refusal of application, totally without merit, 30 May 2012 Estimated reading time: 1 hour

Key dates: Hearing of and ruling on Cs Module 1 application for CP status Refusal of permission to JR the Module 1 ruling Commencement of Module 1 evidence End of Module 1 oral hearings Application for Module 2 CP status Ruling on Module 2 CP status Commencement of Module 2 evidence D informed CA had refused permission to appeal and the application held to be totally without merit JR proceedings commenced against M2 CP status ruling Directions Order made by Mr Justice Ouseley Refusal of permission to JR the Module 2 ruling Oral application for Module 3 CP status heard End of Module 2 oral hearings Claimants supplemental written submissions for M3 CP status 4 Oct 11 4 Nov 11 14 Nov 11 9 Feb 12 27 & 31 Jan 12 17 Feb 12 27 Feb 12

2 Mar 12 2 Mar 12 7 Mar 12 14 Mar 12 3 Apr 12 4 Apr 12

5 Apr 12

Ruling on Module 3 CP status (decision currently challenged) 5 Apr 12

Current proceedings commenced against M3 CP status ruling 20 Apr 12 Application for Urgent Consideration Summary Grounds of Resistance Amended Application for Urgent Consideration including an application for an injunction requiring the Claimants questions to be put to Lord Rothermere by Counsel to the Inquiry on 10 May 2012. 23 Apr 12 3 May 12

9 May 12

Permission and interim relief refused on the papers by Mr Justice Ouseley, held to be totally without merit Commencement of Module 3 oral hearings Application for injunction requiring certain questions to be asked of the Secretary of the State for Justice issued Application for injunction requiring questions to be asked refused by Mr Justice Lindblom: application held to be totally without merit. He says that a civil restraint order is a live issue Application for Module 4 CP status Refusal of Module 4 CP status

9 May 12 10 May 12

30 May 12

30 May 12 15 June 12 25 June 12

Notes: At the time of writing the Claimant has yet to serve a hearing bundle index. Accordingly, it has not been possible to cross reference this skeleton argument with the hearing bundle.

Introduction 1. The Claimant challenges the Defendants refusal to permit her core participant status in Module 3 of the Leveson Inquiry (the Inquiry). The substantive issue as between the Claimant and the Defendant boils down to whether the Chairman of the Inquiry lawfully exercised his discretion in deciding that the Claimant should not have core participant status. The question at this stage is whether the Claimant should be granted permission to proceed to a full judicial review hearing.

Facts 2. The relevant facts about the Leveson Inquiry and core participant status are set out in the Defendants Summary Grounds of Resistance and are not repeated here.

3. Since the Summary Grounds of Resistance were drafted the Claimant has twice applied for and been refused an injunction requiring counsel to the inquiry to put specific questions to two separate witnesses. In each case the learned judge determining the application has held the application to be totally without merit. On

30 May 2012, when disposing of the second of these applications, Mr Justice Lindblom stated: I have not at this stage considered whether a civil restraint order should be made in your case, though that question, in my view, is certainly live.

4. Further, the Claimant has applied for and been refused core participant status in Module 4 of the Inquiry.

Law 5. The test for the grant of permission is whether the Claimant can demonstrate an arguable case that a ground for seeking judicial review exists which merits full investigation at a full oral hearing: CPR 54.4.2.

6. Even if this test is met the grant of permission remains a matter of discretion for the court. Permission may also be refused, inter alia, if the claimant has not, in fact suffered any injustice: CPR 54.4.4.

Applying the Facts to the Law There is not an arguable case meriting a full hearing 7. It is clear from the ruling dated 5 April 2012 (which was served with the Summary Grounds) that the Chairman of the Inquiry properly directed himself as to the applicable law (especially rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules 2006): see 6-7. He took into account the Claimants application which was made orally and supplemented in writing: see 10. Having done so, the grant of permission was a matter of discretion.

8. The Chairman of the Inquiry did not arguably exercise his discretion unlawfully. The Chairman took into account all of the material facts and rationally refused core participant status in these terms which it is respectfully submitted speak for themselves:

...To such extent as her concerns touch upon the relationship between the press and politicians, it appears to me to be tangential to her complaints

about the way she has personally been treated by the press and her inability to obtain redress through the courts or the police. It is not, in my view, sufficient to bring her within Rule 5(2) and justify core participant status for Module 3. Further, there seems to be little if any prospect that an examination of her fact sensitive case would significantly advance the work of the Inquiry in Module 3. Although I recognise the persistence of her applications and her wish to participate in the work of the Inquiry, this application has no sufficient foundation and I refuse it... (Ruling, 10).

9. Module 3 concerns the press and politicians. The Defendant notes and relies upon the conspicuous absence of a political dimension to the statement of facts set out at section 8 of the Claim Form. As Mr Justice Ouseley stated when refusing permission: The third module is the least appropriate module of the three for the Claimants points to be ventilated. And so if the first two refusals were obviously lawful, as the Courts held, this most recent refusal is also obviously lawful.

10. It is to be remembered that the Inquiry is not a forum for the resolution of private complaints. It is an inquiry into culture, practices and ethics with (in Part 1) high level terms of reference and a tight timetable. The Inquiry could not sensibly permit all of those who complain about the conduct of the police in relation to a matter with a media connection to become core participants. The Inquiry is exploring in some (but not exhaustive) detail factual issues at the heart of its remit, such as the conduct of phone hacking investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service. But it cannot so explore every allegation which might, or might not, be of assistance to the discharge of its Terms of Reference. Still less should it grant core participant status to all of those who make such allegations. The Chairmans task in Part 1 of the Inquiry is to establish through evidence a sufficient narrative so as to enable him to make the recommendations which he is required to make. In those circumstances it is respectfully submitted that the Claimants challenge is unarguable.

ECHR 11. In paragraph 2 of her Detailed Statement of Grounds section of her Claim Form the Claimant alleges that the refusal of core participant status violates her rights under Arts.6, 8,10 & 14 ECHR. It is respectfully submitted that this argument is misconceived because, as stated above, the purpose of the Inquiry is not the vindication of individual rights. Moreover, the civil justice system, through the law of defamation and libel, provides an effective safeguard for the Claimants Convention rights.

The Claimants Arguments 12. The Defendant relies upon the response pleaded at 19-23 of the Summary Grounds of Resistance in response to the Claimants arguments pleaded at 1(a)-(g) of her Detailed Statement of Grounds.

The Claimants Other Applications 13. At Section 7, paragraph 1 of her Claim Form the Claimant seeks an order that a letter referred to by the Core Participant Victims counsel, dated 24 or 25 January 2012 be disclosed. It is submitted that this document is irrelevant to the Claimants application.

14. At Section 7, paragraph 3 of her Claim Form the Claimant seeks an order preventing counsel for the Core Participant Victims from continuing in that role. It is submitted that this application is both irrelevant to the Claimants challenge and misconceived.

Conclusion on the Claimants Application 15. The Defendant respectfully submits that permission should be refused on the grounds that the Claimant does not have an arguable case which merits a full hearing and/or in the exercise of the Courts discretion.

Civil Restraint Order

16. In the event that permission is refused and having regard: (a) to the history of the Claimants repeated and unmeritorious challenges to the Inquiry; and (b) the fact that consideration of a civil restraint order at the behest of the court is a live issue following Mr Justice Lindbloms order dated 30 May 2012, the Defendant respectfully submits that it would be appropriate to make an Extended Civil Restraint Order such that the Claimant cannot, without the Courts prior permission, issue further applications for judicial review against the Defendant in relation to the Inquiry.

DAVID BARR

Temple Garden Chambers London EC4Y 9DA 26 June 2012