This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/01/glenn-mulcaire-phone-hacking-appeal-court
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Glenn Mulcaire ordered to reveal phone hacking details by appeal court | Glenn Mulcaire ordered to reveal phone hacking details by appeal court |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, has lost his appeal against an earlier high court ruling requiring him to reveal who at the News of the World instructed him to hack into Steve Coogan's voicemails. | Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, has lost his appeal against an earlier high court ruling requiring him to reveal who at the News of the World instructed him to hack into Steve Coogan's voicemails. |
| The court of appeal ruled on Wednesday that Mulcaire was not entitled to section 72 privilege against self-incrimination and must reveal who at the now-defunct News International title had instructed him to hack the phones of Coogan and Nicola Phillips, the assistant to celebrity publicist Max Clifford, who he had passed the information he received on to, and who he had replayed recordings of the messages to. | |
| The master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, refused Mulcaire permission to appeal, but acknowledged "that the supreme court may be interested in taking the case". For this reason he granted a stay on the enforcement order which means the investigator will not have to disclose who asked him to hack Coogan and Phillips's phones immediately. | |
| Mulcaire was given until 5pm on Monday to appeal. His solicitor, Sarah Webb, issued a statement immediately saying he would appealing by the deadline. | |
| Neuberger said the court had agreed with Mr Justice Vos and Mr Justice Mann's high court order last year that the private investigator should provide the information in relation to alleged phone hacking of Coogan and Phillips. | |
| Mulcaire, who was jailed in January 2007 for intercepting the voicemail of eight people, had asked the court to rule that he should not have to answer questions because it might incriminate him. | |
| Neuberger said in his opinion those who instructed him were "part and parcel of the interception". | |
| He said: "Together with Mr Mulcaire, he would be liable for infringement of the victim's right in the confidential information." | |
| Coogan's solicitor, John Kelly, said: "This is a very significant decision and is a landmark ruling in the area of privilege against self-incrimination (PSI). The Coogan decision is likely to be relied upon by other phone-hacking victims to assist them in their cases against News Group Newspapers and Mulcaire. | |
| Mulcaire said: "I intend to appeal this ruling to the supreme court, because this may affect my right to claim the privilege in other cases still being brought against me." | |
| The case hinged on a section of the law that allows privilege against self-incrimination, but not if the information is commercial or involves intellectual property. | |
| In his judgment, Neuberger said Coogan argued that 70% of his voicemails were business related and therefore commercial in nature and contained confidential information. | |
| Neuberger noted that Phillips had "two mobile phones, each of which, she said, 'were used both socially and for business'. On each she would receive 'voicemail messages by friends and contacts, some of which could have been very sensitive and relate to matters of considerable newsworthiness." | |
| He also noted that Coogan has one phone on which he received private and business calls. "He estimated that around 70% of his voice messages concerned his 'work as an actor, writer, producer and a director of Baby Cow Limited, a production company of which he is the chairman and a director." | |
| Neuberger agreed with Mann's earlier opinion that Phillips voice mails were "plainly capable of being confidential" and they would have a value to the person who "engaged" Mulcaire to obtain them. | |
| Neuberger dismissed Mulcaire's appeal on the grounds that "much of the information on the voicemail messages of the claimants which have been intercepted by Mr Mulcaire is likely to have been 'commercial information or other intellectual property' within section 72 (5) [of the Senior Courts Act]". | |
| Section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 cuts down the common law privilege against self-incrimination in relation to certain types of claim. | |
| Mulcaire had three grounds of appeal. He argued that the voice messages of Phillips and Coogan were not intellectual property and that that if were required to provide all the information ordered he would be at risk of being prosecuted for an offence which is not a related offence so section 72 does apply. Last, he argued that section 72 is inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. | |
| • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication". | • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication". |
| • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook | • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook |