Out-Law News 3 min. read

Times editor apologises over email hacking case


The editor of the Times newspaper has apologised after admitting that a former reporter had unlawfully hacked into an email account to unmask the identity of an anonymous police blogger.

James Harding told the Leveson inquiry into press standards that he had been unaware that the activity had taken place at the time the paper was embroiled in a High Court hearing to determine whether it had the right to name the blogger.

"I sorely regret the intrusion into Richard Horton's email account by a journalist then in our newsroom. I'm sure that Mr Horton and many other people expect better of the Times; so do I. So on behalf of the paper, I apologise," Harding said at the inquiry (51-page / 227KB PDF).

"I am responsible for what happens in the newsroom of the Times, I'm not responsible for what happens in the courtroom, but I do feel that while the company handles legal affairs, somebody owes Mr Justice Eady and Mr Horton an apology, and I think you'll have seen I've written to Mr Justice Eady to apologise for the fact that this was not disclosed to the court," he said.

In 2009 the Times won a High Court ruling enabling it to publish the name of an anonymous blogger known as 'NightJack'. Richard Horton, a Lancashire police detective constable, had argued that the court should prevent the paper naming him as the blogger. He unsuccessfully claimed the paper owed a duty to keep the information confidential, and that he had a right to privacy.

In the case the Times argued that Patrick Foster, the reporter responsible for the email hacking, "had been able to arrive at the identification by a process of deduction and detective work, mainly using information available on the Internet".

Harding said that the paper's legal manager, Alastair Brett, had taken the case to the High Court without informing him and that he had only recently become aware that Foster had unlawfully hacked into Horton's email account to unmask his identity.

"I had no idea that the case had been brought to court. I didn't know what the legal correspondence was, I didn't know who had been instructed, I didn't know what the instructions were, I didn't know the subject matter in the case. So all of this is after the fact," Harding said.

In a witness statement Harding said that it was his understanding that Brett "decided not to inform leading counsel for the Times, Antony White Queen's Counsel, or the court about the issue [of email hacking during the court hearings] because he took the view that this information provided to him by Mr Foster was confidential and privileged, that it would incriminate Mr Foster, and that in any event Mr Foster had been able to identify Mr Horton through legitimate means".

Under the Computer Misuse Act it is an offence for a person to knowingly cause "a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured" without authorisation. There is no public interest defence available under the Act to legitimise such an offence.

Following the High Court ruling Harding decided that the story should be published. He maintained that he was not fully aware of what Foster had done wrong at the time and did not want to be accused of bringing "vexatious" cases to court through deciding not to publish the story. He said that he believed at the time that it was also in the public interest to out the identity of Horton as a "police officer who appears to be in breach of his police duties". However, the Times editor said that if he had known about the email hacking at the time it was printed he would not have agreed to it being published.

Harding said that failings in the way information was communicated internally at the paper meant he had decided to publish the story in the aftermath of the Court's ruling, which had authorised the unmasking, on a false legal basis that it was in the public interest to do so. He said that in future all journalist meetings with lawyers should be "logged" so as to immediately flag up "issues of concern and issues of legality" to newspapers' management.

"If we'd had that process in place then, I'm sure the alarm bells would have gone off much sooner," Harding said.

 The Metropolitan Police are investigating the issue of email hacking at the paper. Labour MP Tom Watson had written to request the action following previous evidence given at the Leveson inquiry.

News International chief executive Thomas Mockridge had told Leveson that a Times reporter had been issued with a formal written warning in 2009 after admitting to gaining unauthorised access to a computer. News International is the publisher of the Times.

Watson has said that the Times "knew" their claims that Foster had discovered Horton's identity through legitimate means was "factually incorrect" during the time the "litigation was live or during the period the paper was waiting for the judge to deliver the judgment".

He said the police investigation could uncover "whether perjury and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" has taken place.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.