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/may/29/leveson-inquiry-may-gove-live

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 11 Version 12
Leveson inquiry: Theresa May and Michael Gove - live Leveson inquiry: Theresa May and Michael Gove appear
(about 17 hours later)
5.16pm: Our full story on Gove's evidence is now live. John Plunkett writes: 9.49am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
Michael Gove has launched an impassioned defence of Rupert Murdoch, describing the embattled media mogul as "one of the most impressive and significant figures of the last 50 years" in colourful evidence to the Leveson inquiry. The education secretary Michael Gove, a longstanding friend and admirer of Rupert Murdoch, will give evidence today alongside his cabinet colleague, the home secretary Theresa May.
The News Corporation mogul, memorably labelled "not a fit person" to run an international company by a House of Commons select committee, was described by Gove as a "force of nature, a phenomenon, a great man". Gove, a former Times journalist, has publicly described Murdoch as a "great man" and "force of nature". Last month, Murdoch praised Gove's "distinguished record" as a Times journalist and revealed that the pair had discussed the prospect of News International opening an academy school in east London.
The effusive Gove, who was a leader writer and home editor at the Times, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, said of his one-time ultimate boss: "It's often the case that successful people invite criticism." He added: "As well as being a successful businessman, I think the position he took on, for example the European single currency, has been vindicated by events." Government records show that Gove had 11 meetings with senior News Corp figures between the May 2010 general election and July 2011.
The minister praised the News Corp chairman and chief executive for moving of his newspapers to Wapping in the 1980s and his investment in satellite television over the subsequent two decades - and kept the inquiry entertained with references to Lord Beaverbrook, Stanley Baldwin, Daniel Defoe and Cicero's O Tempora, O Mores. Earlier this year he became the first minister to speak out about the danger of freedom of speech being harmed by the "chilling atmosphere" created by the Leveson inquiry. He also expressed admiration for the launch of the Sun on Sunday, saying: "Whenever anyone sets up a new newspaper – as Rupert Murdoch has with the Sun on Sunday – they should be applauded and not criticised."
He was also unapologetic about a string of meetings with Murdoch and senior News International executives since the Tories came into power in May 2010, saying he had never at any point discussed News Corporation's aborted £8bn bid for BSkyB, which was launched a month later. Theresa May is likely to be quizzed about police handling of phone-hacking allegations after she became home secretary in May 2010.
Gove's diary indicated that he had 11 meetings with senior News Corp figures between the general election win in May 2010 and July 2011. May is expected to be asked whether some politicians, senior Scotland Yard officers and media executives were too close.
He did, however, discuss Andy Coulson's resignation from David Cameron's government at a dinner on 31 January 2011, hosted by Charles Dunstone, where Rebekah Brooks, then still chief executive of News International, was among the guests. Coulson had resigned 10 days earlier. The inquiry begins at 10am.
"I have a pretty clear recollection that we did touch on Andy Coulson's resignation," Gove told the Leveson inquiry on Tuesday. "It's understandable. Andy Coulson had been a colleague of both of ours and I think both of us felt a degree of sympathy for him having had to resign twice." Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons.
The education secretary described Rupert Murdoch as a "force of nature, a phenomenon, a great man. I enjoyed meeting him as a journalist, I subsequently enjoyed meeting him when I was a politician." 9.53am: The Guardian's Esther Addley has just tweeted:
You can read the full story here. Beefed up security at #Leveson today following Blair debacle yday. Theresa May and Michael Gove today's star turns
4.11pm: Here is a brief summary of today's evidence to the Leveson inquiry: — esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
• Michael Gove described Rupert Murdoch as one of most "impressive and significant" figures of the past 50 years. 9.56am: Esther Addley continues:
• The education secretary clashed with Leveson over free expression. Bag searches at door to court for first time and special branch chaps at rear, where intruder got in #Leveson
• Gove warned against statutory regulation of press and urged Leveson to "consider carefully" his proposals. — esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
• Gove said he "felt a degree of sympathy" for Andy Coulson after his resignation from No 10. and
• Gove denied advance knowledge of News Corporation's £8bn BSkyB bid. May has just arrived, with entourage of seven #Leveson
• New "commonsense" guidelines on contacts between the press and the police are being drawn up. — esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
10.01am: The home secretary, Theresa May, has taken the witness stand.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.
10.03am: Jay asks May about her role as head of the police force.
She says she sets the policy background, but funding for individual operational areas such as counter-terrorism is a matter for the police.
10.06am: Jay asks May about the IPCC.
She says it is independent and decides what and how to investigate. However, she can ask the body to undertake particular pieces of work.
10.06am: The Guardian journalist Amelia Hill and a Metropolitan police officer will not face charges over leak allegations relating to Scotland Yard's phone-hacking investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
May says if there is a strong feeling on the part of the home secretary, or an outcry from the public, the IPCC can be asked to investigate.
10.09am: Asked about policing in London, May says the Metropolitan police authority and chief constable will decide where to allocate resources in consultation with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
10.12am: Here is the full statement from Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the Crown Prosecution Service decision not to charge Guardian journalist Amelia Hill and a Metropolitan police officer over leak claims:
On the 2 April 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service requesting charging advice in relation to two suspects. The first is a serving Metropolitan police officer in the Operation Weeting team whose name is not in the public domain. He is currently suspended. The second suspect is Amelia Hill, a journalist who writes for the Guardian newspaper.
The allegation is that the police officer passed confidential information about phone-hacking cases to the journalist.
All the evidence has now carefully been considered and I have decided that neither the police officer nor the journalist should face a prosecution. The following paragraphs explain the reasons for my decision. It is important to bear in mind that the question I have addressed is whether there is enough evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Those are the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is not my function to make findings of fact and I have not done so. Both the police officer and Ms. Hill are entitled to be presumed innocent and that is the basis upon which I have approached this case.
In reaching my decision, I have applied the interim guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media, which were recently published by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The suspects have been considered separately, as different considerations arise in relation to each of them.
Between 4 April 2011 and 18 August 2011, Ms Hill wrote 10 articles which were published in the Guardian. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that these articles contained confidential information derived from Operation Weeting, including the names of those who had been arrested. I am also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the police officer disclosed that information to Ms Hill.
I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence against either suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the common law offence of misconduct in a public office or conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
In this case, there is no evidence that the police officer was paid any money for the information he provided.
Moreover, the information disclosed by the police officer, although confidential, was not highly sensitive. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. It did not compromise the investigation. And the information in question would probably have made it into the public domain by some other means, albeit at some later stage.
In those circumstances, I have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in the police officer's case because his alleged conduct is not capable of reaching the high threshold necessary to make out the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. It follows that there is equally no realistic prospect of a conviction against Ms. Hill for aiding and abetting the police officer's conduct.
However, the information disclosed was personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I am satisfied that there is arguably sufficient evidence to charge both the police officer and Ms Hill with offences under section 55 of that act, even when the available defences are taken into account.
I have therefore gone on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. There are finely balanced arguments tending both in favour of and against prosecution.
Journalists and those who interact with them have no special status under the law and thus the public interest factors have to be considered on a case by case basis in the same way as any other. However, in cases affecting the media, the DPP's interim guidelines require prosecutors to consider whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality alleged.
So far as Ms Hill is concerned, the public interest served by her alleged conduct was that she was working with other journalists on a series of articles which, taken together, were capable of disclosing the commission of criminal offences, were intended to hold others to account, including the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service, and were capable of raising and contributing to an important matter of public debate, namely the nature and extent of the influence of the media. The alleged overall criminality is the breach of the Data Protection Act, but, as already noted, any damage caused by Ms Hill's alleged disclosure was minimal. In the circumstances, I have decided that in her case, the public interest outweighs the overall criminality alleged.
Different considerations apply to the police officer. As a serving police officer, any claim that there is a public interest in his alleged conduct carries considerably less weight than that of Ms Hill. However, there are other important factors tending against prosecution, including as already noted, the fact that no payment was sought or received, and that the disclosure did not compromise the investigation. Moreover, disclosing the identity of those who are arrested is not, of itself, a criminal offence. It is only unlawful in this case because the disclosure also breached the Data Protection Act.
In the circumstances, I have decided that a criminal prosecution is not needed against either Ms Hill or the police officer.
However, in light of my conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting the police officer for an offence under the Data Protection Act, I have written to the Metropolitan Police Service and to the IPCC recommending that they consider bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.
Alison Levitt QC,
Principal legal adviser to the DPP
10.14am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
May written statement: I have received Acpo proposals on hospitality and will answer questions on this #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
10.16am: Jay asks May about the ACPO guidance on gifts, gratuities and hospitality, which is being drafted.
He say the general move is towards non-acceptablilty, except in exceptional circumstances where such benefits are put in a register.
May says she welcomes the move towards greater consistency.
10.21am: The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has tweeted about the CPS's decision not to prosecute journalist Amelia Hill:
CPS confirm no payment sought or received. Public interest in stories outweighed any possible offence under DPA#leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 29, 2012
and
CPS: information was confidential, but caused no harm to cops' inquiry."Damage minimal" & wd hv bn public domain anyway.
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 29, 2012
and
Summary: CPS seems to have applied its own sensible new guidelines re charging journalists bit.ly/I5x5BY#leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 29, 2012
10.23am: Jay turns to new guidance on relationships between journalists and police officers.
May says she welcomes ACPO's report in this area.
Police will speak to journalists and journalists will speak to the police. There are a number of occasions where police may find it helpful to speak to journalists ... but this brings a clearer framework for police officers.
The ACPO guidance recommends an expectation that all contact between police officers and journalists be noted in some way.
10.24am: May says that different guidance on relations with journalists was being operated in different police forces.
May says it is important that the new guidance does not usher in a "chilling effect" and that it brings common sense to the fore.
10.26am: Our full story on the CPS's decision not to prosecute journalist Amelia Hill is now live. Dan Roberts writes:
The Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to prosecute a police officer alleged to have passed information about the phone-hacking scandal to the Guardian during early stages of the inquiry.
There was also no action taken against Amelia Hill, a Guardian reporter interviewed under caution last September during the same investigation into leaks.
Previously, the police were widely criticised by press freedom campaigners for attempting to use the Official Secrets Act to force the Guardian to disclose details of its confidential sources.
Amelia is one of the two Guardian journalists who first revealed that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked by the News of The World.
On Tuesday the CPS said there was "insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction on an allegation of misconduct in a public office". It added that it believed there was "sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to offences contrary to section 55 of the Data Protection Act" but that a prosecution for this is "not required in the public interest".
A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We welcome the Crown Prosecution Service's sensible decision to abandon this worrying attempt to criminalise legitimate contact between journalists and confidential sources. Nevertheless, the paper makes no comment on the validity of the Met police assertion that the officer it identified was Amelia's source in this case."
The CPS decision follows recently published guidelines on how to deal with cases involving the media, which were updated in April. These state that prosecutors should take into account whether there was "any element of corruption in the conduct in question" and whether the media conduct is "capable of disclosing that a criminal offence has been committed".
"Journalists, and those who work with them, are not afforded special status under the criminal law, but the public interest served by their actions is a relevant factor in deciding whether they should be prosecuted in an individual case," said CPS director Keir Starmer.
"Under the guidelines, prosecutors are required to assess whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality before commencing a prosecution. If so, a prosecution is less likely."
Amelia Hill has always maintained that she has never paid a police officer for information or obtained information corruptly. She was only interviewed by the police once, under caution, last September, and has never been arrested.
Previous police attempts to pursue the alleged leaks from Operation Weeting using the Official Secrets Act were also implicitly criticised by the CPS and the director of public prosecutions last September who revealed they had not been consulted. At the time, the attempt was criticised by almost every national newspaper and many leading politicians.
The Met later dropped its attempt to use the Official Secrets Act but said it would continue to investigate "unacceptable" leaks from Operation Weeting.
10.27am: Leveson asks whether it is sufficient to note the general topic of a conversation rather than the content.
May says for the "vast majority" of discussions only an general topic note will be taken.
10.28am: Jay turns to the police and phone-hacking allegations.
May confirms that she assumed office in May 2010 and the first time that the issue came across her radar was when the New York Times published a detailed article in September of that year.
10.30am: May says she saw reports of the New York Times article but did not read the piece itself.
She says she felt it appropriate to make sure action was taken into the report, when asked why she did not ask to see it.
May adds:
It's not for the home secretary to decide whether information that appears in a newspaper should be investigated.
10.31am: May says the article "suggested there might be further evidence available" which is why her office asked the Met police to look into it.
10.32am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Police banned from taking hospitality bar light refreshments and trivial gifts bannedunder interim ACPO guidelines unveiled at Leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
and
Police also required to make a note of all meetings with journalists, under interim ACPO guidelines unveiled at #Leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
10.36am: May says it is important that the police can complete their investigations, and then judgements can be made.
Jay suggests that a cogent body of evidence was emerging in September 2010 that warranted a further police investigation, including the "for Neville" email.
May maintains that it is for the police, not the home secretary, to decide whether there is fresh evidence worthy of investigation.
10.38am: Jay says it is clear that the issue of phone hacking had already become "highly politicised".
May says debates in the House of Commons will always have political aspects, but her job is to look at the facts and make a decision based on that.
The decision was that police are investigating and it was up to them whether there was sufficient evidence to investigate further, she says.
10.39am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
New police guidelines on hospitality flashed up on Leveson screens. Based on principle of "blanket non-acceptabliity" of all gifts
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
10.42am: A file from the Met police on hacking allegations was sent to the CPS on 12 November 2010 after interviewing several journalists under caution.
The director of public prosecutions advised that there was no admissable evidence against journalists.
May says she was aware that there was no further information forthcoming from the interviews with police.
10.43am: Jay asks about the resignation of Andy Coulson, the No 10 director of communications and former News of the World editor, on 21 January 2011.
10.44am: May had a conversation with acting Met police commissioner Tim Godwin on the telephone, says Jay.
The home secretary went to see Alison Leavitt, the senior CPS official, the following week, the inquiry hears.
Leavitt told May that the police had used a "very different definition of phone hacking" to the definition the CPS believed should now be the case.
10.47am: In a note of the call between Godwin and May, as read by Jay, Godwin reassured the home secretary that the Operation Weeting investigation was under control and that it was important for Scotland Yard to conduct it, rather than an external force.
10.52am: Jay asks whether there was a national security element to the phone-hacking scandal, given that at least one former cabinet minister had been targeted.
May says it was not because the mobile phones targeted were not secure so "there should not be material security concern on those telephones".
Pressed by Jay, May says that no restricted material is sent to or from mobile phones that are not secure.
She adds there would also be an understanding that matters of national security should not be discussed on unsecured telephones.
10.54am: Jay moves forward to 10 March 2011, when May says that ministers took the view that phone hacking was under ongoing scrutiny by Scotland Yard.
10.57am: May is asked why the government did not take active steps to establish whether a former prime minister's phone had been hacked.
She says that the police should be allowed to identify and contact those who had their phones hacked.
It was not felt necessary to take further action against News International before the police investigation was complete, she adds.
10.58am: Jay suggests the issue was being "parked" and asks to what extent it was linked to the resignation of Coulson.
"Not at all," says May.
11.01am: A free press is essential in a functioning democracy, May tells the inquiry.
She says there has been a "growing concern" that the Press Complaints Commission does not do the job it was set up to do.
11.02am: Leveson asks May whether she has formed views on a possible future framework for regulation of the press.
She says she has not, but warns against "state interference" of newspapers through a statutory body.
11.03am: "Sometimes what is written can be frustrating, sometimes one might question its accuracy, but it's important to let that freedom take place," May says.
She adds that it is important for complainants to be able to get redress from newspapers.
11.04am: Jay takes May back to the phone-hacking timeline.
He says that on 23 June 2011 May was provided with advice on a letter the Labour MP Tom Watson had written to the head of the Met police investigation into phone hacking, DAC Sue Akers.
11.06am: May was advised to note Watson's letter and not respond.
Jay says that Watson claimed in the letter that "a cleaner had been brought in to eradicate evidence", but did not expand other than to say these were allegations and "not hard evidence".
11.07am: May was briefed in July 2011 ahead of an appearance before the Commons home affairs select committee on the day after the Guardian broke the phone-hacking story on Milly Dowler.
11.11am: May says there were growing concerns about the media regulation system in place in July 2011, but she believed that self-regulation was the way to deal with the media.
The background to the prime minister announcing the Leveson inquiry was questions about the culture of the media as highlighted by the phone-hacking scandal, she adds.
11.13am: May wrote to the Met police commissioner on 14 July 2011 asking a series of questions about the force's links to Chamy Media, the PR firm set up by former News of the World executive Neil Wallis.
11.17am: May received a reply from Scotland Yard but told them she "remained concerned" about its links to Wallis and was "disappointed" she had not been informed earlier.
Asked why she took action at this time, May says: "We were in danger of that important relationship and confidence between public and police being damaged."
11.21am: Jay turns to a memo received by May on 18 July 2011 from a "Mr Timothy" raising questions that may be asked in the Commons about the resignation of Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson.
11.22am: May is asked whether Stephenson felt he could not talk to her or any other minister about the Neil Wallis issue.
"I certainly don't recall any such conversation," May says.
11.24am: May received a briefing note in preparation for any links made between the government's hiring of Coulson and Wallis's employment by Scotland Yard, the inquiry hears.
May was advised to respond that the government was not in charge of investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the News of the World (but Scotland Yard was).
11.26am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
11.33am: Here is a short summary of May's evidence so far:
• New "commonsense" guidelines on contacts between the press and the police are being drawn up.
• May told Scotland Yard she was 'concerned' about its links to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis in July 2011.
• May did not read the September 2010 New York Times article on phone hacking.
11.35am: If you would like to watch today's hearing, there is a live stream on the Leveson inquiry website.
11.39am: Jay moves forward to 5 October 2011.
May says she was pleased to hear from Sir Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, that instances of deliberate malpractice at were infrequent and not widespread.
11.41am: May accepted Sir Dennis O'Connor's suggestions on police hospitality in a report to the home secretary on December 2011, Jay says.
11.47am: May is asked about Elisabeth Filkin's report into contact between the press and police officers.
11.49am: In briefing notes, May advised that all forces take note of Filkin's recommendations, not just the Metropolitan police. She says Filkin's report and the ACPO recommendations should be read in conjunction.
11.51am: May says that senior police officers should have "a degree of media training".
This is being examined as part of ACPO's guidance, she adds.
11.55am: May endorses Filkin's recommendation of "permissable but conditional" relations between police officers and journalists.
11.57am: The question of relationships with media and integrity reached the point where May asked HMIC to look at integrity within Scotland Yard, the inquiry hears.
She clarifies that this was not specifically about the Met police's interactions with the media, but that the issue of hiring Neil Wallis's Chamy Media was of concern at the time.
12.01pm: May says in her witness statement that she expressed "surprise and regret" to Sir Paul Stephenson over his resignation after he received hospitality from a Champneys health spa, but she did not attempt to dissuade him.
I expressed surprise because I'd already had a conversation that weekend with Sir Paul ... and he'd given no hint of a possible resignation and when he later called me to say he had resigned that was a surprising turn of events.
She goes on to praise Stephenson for his leadership of the Met.
12.05pm: May is asked about the differences in conduct between police officers and politicians and how they deal with the media. She notes that police officers do not have to campaign for re-election, as MPs do.
12.07pm: May says she believes it is important to reinforce police integrity by installing "proper frameworks" for conduct with the media.
She adds that the government-introduced police and crime commissioner will bring a new layer of "democratic accountability" to police forces across the country.
12.13pm: Jay turns his focus to the relationship between politicians and journalists. May says she does not believe there is a "risk inherent" in the relationship.
12.14pm: "I don't see the relationship as quite the transactional relationship as you describe," May tells Jay, after the inquiry counsel asks whether both politician and journalist expected something out of their discussions. "It's about the responsibilities operated by the individuals," May adds.
12.19pm: May is asked whether certain newspapers can "excite" public opinion about immigration.
She says newspaper opinion on immigration is varied so there is not one single theme.
12.28pm: May is now on to press regulation. She says there needs to a be a complaints-handling body, to which groups can lodge complaints as well as individuals.
12.29pm: May says she would not rule out the new press regulator being based in statute, but warned that it should get the balance right between freedom of the press and providing redress for complainants.
12.30pm: Leveson says his concern is that voluntary regulation that is not seen as effective "is not really regulation of any sort".
12.33pm: Leveson asks May for "first blush views" to provide into those he considers as part of his inquiry, before he reports to the home secretary and her colleagues.
May says she hesitates to give a firm example partly because she will be one of the cabinet ministers to decide on Leveson's report.
12.38pm: May says there could be "unintended consequences" for statutory intervention on the press, adding that any solution needs to be tilted in favour of press freedom.
12.41pm: Theresa May had telephone calls with Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan on 11 May 2011 about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the inquiry hears.
May spoke to the pair about the Home Office review of the evidence involved in the disappearance. She says that the Home Office had been discussing with ACPO "for some time" about undertaking a review and it was not given the go-ahead at short notice.
May says she does not recall having a conversation with David Cameron on or around the 11 May about the Madeleine McCann disappearance. Neither Brooks nor Mohan indicated that May would "be on the front page of the Sun until the review was announced", she says.
This phone call to Brooks and Mohan was at her instigation, May says.
12.43pm: Asked whether she was under pressure behind the scenes to launch the review of the McCann case, May says the Home Office had been working on it for some time.
May does not directly answer the question, but Jay seems satisfied with the response and moves on.
12.43pm: May has now completed her evidence.
12.43pm: The inquiry has now broken for lunch and will resume at 2pm with evidence from Michael Gove, the education secretary.
12.50pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of home secretary Theresa May's evidence:
• New "commonsense" guidelines on contacts between the press and the police are being drawn up.
• May telephoned Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan about the review of the Madeleine McCann case in May 2011.• May telephoned Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan about the review of the Madeleine McCann case in May 2011.
• May told Scotland Yard she was "concerned" about its links to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis in July 2011.• May told Scotland Yard she was "concerned" about its links to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis in July 2011.
• May did not rule out a statutory backstop for a new press regulator, but warned about possible "unintended consequences". • May did not not rule out a statutory backstop for a new press regulator, but warned about possible "unintended consequences".
• Senior police officers should be media trained, May told the inquiry.• Senior police officers should be media trained, May told the inquiry.
• May did not read the key September 2010 New York Times article on phone hacking. • May did not read the September 2010 New York Times article on phone hacking.
4.03pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted: 2.05pm: Leveson opens by saying that the investigation into how anti-war protester David Lawley-Wakelin was able to access a secure part of the court and interrupt the evidence of Tony Blair yesterday has been completed.
Gove has done well to turn this Leveson session into a debate about press principles; glossed over his repeated Murdoch contacts. The incident has been referred to the director of public prosecutions, he says.
2.06pm: Michael Gove, the education secretary, has taken the witness stand.
2.07pm: Gove says he does not agree that the relationship between politicians and journalists is a "purely transactional" one. He says it is "multi-layered", but can understand why Lord Mandelson said it was transactional.
2.11pm: Jay asks Gove if the relationship between politicians and the media is "poisonous".
Gove strongly disagrees. Some areas are "a little rough-edged", he adds.
2.13pm: Gove believes the separating of fact and comment in newspapers is "an ideal" that has developed over centuries after Leveson asks how that sits with the Press Complaints Commission code.
2.14pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Fear for the shorthand writer with Gove's speed of delivery. At the moment he gives evidence as Times home ed, rather than aminister tho'
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
and 2.16pm: Gove says that spin doctors have operated since the Roman republic, citing Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe as examples.
Gove has done a good job to control the Inquiry today. Leveson will have to deal with Gove whenever judge's report comes to cabinet. He does not say whether this spin has got better or worse over time, when asked by Leveson, but that it is a fact of politics.
2.18pm: Gove is dealing with Jay's questions at lightning speed, with the pair's opening exchanges prompting a strong defence of the press from the education secretary.
2.20pm: Gove confirms he was leader writer of the Times for about a decade. He says there was not one occasion when Rupert Murdoch attempted to sway his leader line.
He says it was his role, as leader writer, to express the view he believed the editor held.
2.21pm: Jay asks whether he believed this was the editor's view or "someone else", referring to Rupert Murdoch.
Gove says it was "emphatically" the view of the editor, who came to a decided position after much discussion.
2.21pm: Leveson asks Gove whether he was surprised to hear that Rupert Murdoch advised politicians to read the Sun's leader column if they wanted to know his views.
"I wasn't too surprised," answers Gove, explaining that the Sun and the Times are very different papers.
2.23pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[Just realised what Gove's evidence reminds me of: Schoolboy doing a French oral exam. V precise, well-prepared, somehow super-real]
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012
2.27pm: Gove describes Rupert Murdoch as "one of the most impressive and significant figures" of the past 50 years.
"He's been succesful in a particular industry" and others have criticised him, Gove adds.
"I enjoyed meeting him while I was a journalist. I also enjoyed meeting him while I was a politician," he says, adding that Murdoch's view on the Eurozone has been vindicated by recent events.
2.27pm: Gove says he has not expressed a view to political colleagues on News Corp's abandoned bid for BSkyB.
Political colleagues "could legitimately infer what my view could be [on the BSkyB bid]," he adds.
2.30pm: Gove is asked about his meetings with media proprietors and editors.
Government records show that Gove had 11 meetings with senior News Corporation figures between the May 2010 general election and July 2011.
2.30pm: Jay points out that Gove has had most meetings with News International, but others with Richard Desmond, Lord Rothermere and the Guardian.
2.31pm: Jay turns to Gove's meeting with Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and others on 19 May 2010, shortly after the Tory government entered No 10.
The discussion touched specifically on education, Gove says, because it is a personal interest of Murdoch's.
2.33pm: The Guardian's Esther Addley has just tweeted:
Well Gove certainly isn't apologetic abt his contacts with Murdoch - 'one of most impressive & significant figs of last 50 years' ‪
— esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
2.34pm: Gove says that the BSkyB bid was not discussed within his hearing at a 15 June 2010 board meeting at News International. He was invited to be interviewed by the journalist Daniel Finkelstein over lunch.
2.37pm: Gove says he did not give the News Corp-BSkyB bid "any particular attention".
Asked for a second time, Gove says he has no recollection of being told the bid was to be launched before it was publicly announced.
Asked a third time, Gove repeats that he has "no recollection of any such conversation of any kind".
He believes it is highly unlikely that the bid was discussed at the 15 June lunch at News International.
2.38pm: Gove concedes it would be significant if a News Corp employee had confided to him about the bid before it had been officially announced.
2.40pm: Gove attended a concert at the O2 arena on 17 December with Rebekah Brooks and friends, the inquiry hears.
He says it is "highly unlikely" the BSkyB bid was discussed at this event.
2.42pm: Gove says he did discuss the resignation of Andy Coulson as No 10's director of communications at a later meeting in January 2011.
"We had degree of human sympathy that he had had to resign twice," he says.
2.44pm: Phone hacking was not discussed with Brooks or Murdoch at meetings on 16 or 26 June, Gove says.
2.45pm: Gove went to breakfast on 19 May 2011 with the Times editor, James Harding; Brooks and Murdoch turned up too.
"It was a pleasant addition," says Gove.
2.47pm: Leveson ask Gove how, as a former journalist, he has put in place safeguards as a government minister. Gove says he uses "commonsense rules".
He says he takes advice from civil servants and parliamentary colleagues, as all MPs should do.
2.47pm: Leveson asks why the public appear to have a low opinion of journalists and politicians.
"T'was ever thus," replies Gove. He says while journalism "has a certain romance, it hasn't always attracted respectability".
2.49pm: Gove is asked about Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.
He describes Dacre as "one of the most impressive editors of our age" and says he has met him on at least two occasions.
2.54pm: Former Guardian media correspondent James Robinson has just tweeted:
Michael 'smartest swot in the class' Gove's facial expression says 'there's nothing u can ask me I'm not clever enough to answer' leveson
— james robinson (‏@jamesro47) May 29, 2012
2.55pm: Gove and Jay engage in a testy back-and-forth taking in references to Stanley Baldwin in the 20s and more.
However, they do not seem to concur on how properly to pronounce "elan".
2.59pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Formidable Frenchifed pronounciation of insouciance from Gove that is impossible to covey on the Twitter machine
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
and 3.00pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
Leveson may win today, because he is the judge, but at some point the coalition is going to have to legislate. [Gove is a very clever man. All anyone is tweeting about is his vocabulary and his historical references. Less about the content.]
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
4.02pm: Gove has now completed his evidence.
4.00pm: Gove says there are two problems with existing law of defamation: the cost, and the fact that the wealthy can use courts to silence dissent.
Leveson agrees about libel reform, saying: "It's not my mission in life to deny lawyers income, but in this field it seems like a good idea."
3.55pm: Leveson tests several ideas of a reconstituted regulator with Gove, for example his idea for a small claims mechanism outside the courts.
The education secretary says some "buccaneering" titles or blogs may decide not be part of a voluntary regulator because they view it as a "cartel".
3.51pm: Jay suggests that Gove's remarks on the Leveson inquiry are "straight out of JS Mill".
Gove replies: "I don't think it's at all abusive to be compared with JS Mill."
Jay responds: "I didn't mean it like that, Mr Gove."
3.45pm: Gove agrees, citing the need for an improved defamation law and possibly even press regulation.
He qualifies this by saying that "sometimes good intentions [with regulation] can result in the curtailment of individual freedom and an unrealistic expectation of how individuals behave".
3.44pm: Leveson says Gove is entitled to his view and agrees that laws do not necessarily solve problems.
However, the judge reasserts the need for a body to assess complaints by those who seek redress from the press.
3.43pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Complete gear change now. Leveson's delibrative questioning clashing withGove's libetarian vim.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
3.43pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[IMO Gove is not addressing the issue when he speaks about a freedom to offend.#Leveson is about freedom to damage/invade/humiliate.]
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012
3.42pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted: 3.01pm: Jay draws that exchange to a close and brings the inquiry back to the current day.
Gove: "The cry that smething mst be dne often leads to people doing something which isn't wise." Leveson: "Believe me I am thnking carefuly" Gove says he has seen no evidence of an express or implied deal between a proprietor or editor and politician.
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012 3.02pm: Gove is asked to give a brief outline of his education policy, including academies and free schools.
3.41pm: Gove concedes that the current saga is "not ideal," but maintains that regulatory intervention is an unfortunate response. 3.02pm: Gove discussed the prospect of News International opening an academy school in east London in 2010.
3.40pm: Gove says: "Before the case for regulation is made, there is a case for liberty as well." There was a meeting in late November 2010 with James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Will Lewis, James Harding, Boris Johnson and others.
I am unashamedly on the side of those who say we should think very carefully about regulation. Gove says that a building might be provided by Newham council and that the Department for Education could not provide the capital cost of opening a new building.
Leveson, leaning forward, says he will think carefully about his proposals but adds that "where we are now is not entirely fit for purpose". 3.04pm: Gove says that the discussions never advanced to the stage of mooting a "proper joint venture" between News International and Newham council.
3.39pm: Leveson puts again to Gove that the press has had "numerous" chances over the decades to clean up its act. Jay says the project fell through early in 2011.
He is unconvinced by Gove's staunch defence of journalism without reference to public concern. 3.05pm: Gove describes News Corp board member Joel Klein as "something of an educational superstar".
3.08pm: Gove says he had provisional talks with News International about opening another free school in west London.
3.08pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
If you want to understand what this line of questioning of Gove at #Leveson is about this is essential reading http://bit.ly/z0zx6D
— Ian Katz ‏(@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.10pm: Gove says some coalition colleagues are sceptical of the idea that free schools could move to a profit-making model.
He hopes some free schools will move in this direction in the second term of government.
3.10pm: Gove says he knew nothing about News Corp's educational subsidiary, Wireless Generation, until he "read about it in the Guardian".
He was aware Murdoch and others had an interest in the way technology would change education.
3.12pm: Gove says he believes Rupert Murdoch was only interested in opening a free school for "purely philanthropic" reasons.
3.12pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
3.13pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Gove WS: when Klein was in London we were guests at rupert's house for dinner on 26 Jan as well as dinner at Matthew freud's house #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
3.14pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
General view is that Gove narrowly ahead of Jay in the heavyweight "vocab-off" if only thanks to Cicero quote
— Ian Katz ‏(@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.16pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[Follows from what Gove said:Rupert Murdoch might have been making profit from running an East End school by 2015-20. Scheme didnt come off]
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012
3.20pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:3.20pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Gove racking up some major brownie points with Dacre and News International with his attack on regulation of press This (rather good) Gove speech is useful background reading for his #Leveson appearance. http://bit.ly/Kpwdu7
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012 — Ian Katz ‏(@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.37pm: Gove says: 3.22pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
By definition, free speech doesn't mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time. Michael Gove's special adviser Henry de zoete is sitting with the press we have just discovered ‪#leveson
He adds that "social ostracism, disapproval" and other reactions can work to banish deplorable journalism. — lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
3.33pm: Gove believes that the law of the land is the best mechanism to deal with miscreant journalists. 3.24pm: Gove is asked about his comments to a press gallery lunch earlier this year, in which said the Leveson inquiry could have a "chilling effect" on press freedom.
"I fear for liberty if those principles are eroded," he says, after a pointed exchange with Lord Justice Leveson. Gove says he did not clear the remarks with No 10 and was speaking off the cuff.
Leveson tells Gove:
I don't need to be told about the importance of free speech. I really don't.
He adds:
I am concerned that you are saying behaviour which is unacceptable has to be accepted because of the right of free speech.
3.30pm: Gove says some journalists have "used and abused freedom of speech", but again warns about the costs of the outcomes of the Leveson inquiry going "too far".
3.29pm: "The purpose of the remarks was to raise the question: might the cure be worse than the disease," Gove says.
He adds that his use of the word "disease" shows that he does believe there was a "serious problem" with press ethics.
3.28pm: Gove says he made his remarks based on evidence received by the inquiry as reported in the press.
3.26pm: The Guardian reported Gove's speech as follows:3.26pm: The Guardian reported Gove's speech as follows:
The Leveson inquiry is creating a "chilling atmosphere" towards freedom of expression, Michael Gove has claimed.The Leveson inquiry is creating a "chilling atmosphere" towards freedom of expression, Michael Gove has claimed.
In a speech to journalists at Westminster over lunch on Tuesday, the education secretary echoed the concerns of senior figures at News International about the impact of the inquiry.In a speech to journalists at Westminster over lunch on Tuesday, the education secretary echoed the concerns of senior figures at News International about the impact of the inquiry.
"I want to concentrate on the big picture and the big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson," the former Times journalist said in a speech to the parliamentary press gallery."I want to concentrate on the big picture and the big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson," the former Times journalist said in a speech to the parliamentary press gallery.
"I think there are laws already in place which we should respect and principles already in place that we should uphold which are central to making sure that this country remains free.""I think there are laws already in place which we should respect and principles already in place that we should uphold which are central to making sure that this country remains free."
Gove acknowledged that some journalists had broken the law. But he said laws were already in place to deal with "rogue" reporters.Gove acknowledged that some journalists had broken the law. But he said laws were already in place to deal with "rogue" reporters.
"It is undoubtedly the case that there were serious crimes which were committed, but we know that these crimes were serious because they broke – if the allegations are proved – the already existing criminal law."It is undoubtedly the case that there were serious crimes which were committed, but we know that these crimes were serious because they broke – if the allegations are proved – the already existing criminal law.
"There are laws against the interception of messages. There are laws against bribery. There are laws which prevent journalists – like any other profession – going rogue. Those laws should be vigorously upheld and vigorously policed.""There are laws against the interception of messages. There are laws against bribery. There are laws which prevent journalists – like any other profession – going rogue. Those laws should be vigorously upheld and vigorously policed."
Gove added that the Leveson inquiry posed a danger of judges and other elements of the establishment acting as arbiters on press freedom.Gove added that the Leveson inquiry posed a danger of judges and other elements of the establishment acting as arbiters on press freedom.
"There is a danger at the moment that what we may see are judges, celebrities and the establishment – all of whom have an interest in taking over from the press as arbiters of what the free press should be – imposing either soft or hard regulation on what should be the maximum of freedom of expression and the maximum of freedom of speech."There is a danger at the moment that what we may see are judges, celebrities and the establishment – all of whom have an interest in taking over from the press as arbiters of what the free press should be – imposing either soft or hard regulation on what should be the maximum of freedom of expression and the maximum of freedom of speech.
"Politicians should recognise that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering the press, which has helped keep us honest in the past and ensured that the standards of debate are higher in this country than in other jurisdictions.""Politicians should recognise that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering the press, which has helped keep us honest in the past and ensured that the standards of debate are higher in this country than in other jurisdictions."
You can read the full article here.You can read the full article here.
3.24pm: Gove is asked about his comments to a press gallery lunch earlier this year, in which said the Leveson inquiry could have a "chilling effect" on press freedom. 3.28pm: Gove says he made his remarks based on evidence received by the inquiry as reported in the press.
Gove says he did not clear the remarks with No 10 and was speaking off the cuff. 3.29pm: "The purpose of the remarks was to raise the question: might the cure be worse than the disease," Gove says.
3.22pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: He adds that his use of the word "disease" shows that he does believe there was a "serious problem" with press ethics.
Michael Gove's special adviser Henry de zoete is sitting with the press we have just discovered ‪#leveson 3.30pm: Gove says some journalists have "used and abused freedom of speech", but again warns about the costs of the outcomes of the Leveson inquiry going "too far".
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012 3.33pm: Gove believes that the law of the land is the best mechanism to deal with miscreant journalists.
"I fear for liberty if those principles are eroded," he says, after a pointed exchange with Lord Justice Leveson.
Leveson tells Gove:
I don't need to be told about the importance of free speech. I really don't.
He adds:
I am concerned that you are saying behaviour which is unacceptable has to be accepted because of the right of free speech.
3.37pm: Gove says:
By definition, free speech doesn't mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time.
He adds that "social ostracism, disapproval" and other reactions can work to banish deplorable journalism.
3.20pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:3.20pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
This (rather good) Gove speech is useful background reading for his #Leveson appearance. http://bit.ly/Kpwdu7 Gove racking up some major brownie points with Dacre and News International with his attack on regulation of press
— Ian Katz ‏(@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012 — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.16pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted: 3.39pm: Leveson puts again to Gove that the press has had "numerous" chances over the decades to clean up its act.
[Follows from what Gove said:Rupert Murdoch might have been making profit from running an East End school by 2015-20. Scheme didnt come off] He is unconvinced by Gove's staunch defence of journalism without reference to public concern.
3.40pm: Gove says: "Before the case for regulation is made, there is a case for liberty as well."
I am unashamedly on the side of those who say we should think very carefully about regulation.
Leveson, leaning forward, says he will think carefully about his proposals but adds that "where we are now is not entirely fit for purpose".
3.41pm: Gove concedes that the current saga is "not ideal," but maintains that regulatory intervention is an unfortunate response.
3.42pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Gove: "The cry that smething mst be dne often leads to people doing something which isn't wise." Leveson: "Believe me I am thnking carefuly"
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.43pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[IMO Gove is not addressing the issue when he speaks about a freedom to offend.#Leveson is about freedom to damage/invade/humiliate.]
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012
3.14pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted: 3.43pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
General view is that Gove narrowly ahead of Jay in the heavyweight "vocab-off" if only thanks to Cicero quote Complete gear change now. Leveson's delibrative questioning clashing withGove's libetarian vim.
— Ian Katz ‏(@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.13pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Gove WS: when Klein was in London we were guests at rupert's house for dinner on 26 Jan as well as dinner at Matthew freud's house #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
3.12pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
3.12pm: Gove says he believes Rupert Murdoch was only interested in opening a free school for "purely philanthropic" reasons.
3.10pm: Gove says he knew nothing about News Corp's educational subsidiary, Wireless Generation, until he "read about it in the Guardian".
He was aware Murdoch and others had an interest in the way technology would change education.
3.10pm: Gove says some coalition colleagues are sceptical of the idea that free schools could move to a profit-making model.
He hopes some free schools will move in this direction in the second term of government.
3.08pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
If you want to understand what this line of questioning of Gove at #Leveson is about this is essential reading http://bit.ly/z0zx6D
— Ian Katz ‏(@iankatz1000) May 29, 2012
3.08pm: Gove says he had provisional talks with News International about opening another free school in west London.
3.05pm: Gove describes News Corp board member Joel Klein as "something of an educational superstar".
3.04pm: Gove says that the discussions never advanced to the stage of mooting a "proper joint venture" between News International and Newham council.
Jay says the project fell through early in 2011.
3.02pm: Gove discussed the prospect of News International opening an academy school in east London in 2010.
There was a meeting in late November 2010 with James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Will Lewis, James Harding, Boris Johnson and others.
Gove says that a building might be provided by Newham council and that the Department for Education could not provide the capital cost of opening a new building.
3.02pm: Gove is asked to give a brief outline of his education policy, including academies and free schools.
3.01pm: Jay draws that exchange to a close and brings the inquiry back to the current day.
Gove says he has seen no evidence of an express or implied deal between a proprietor or editor and politician.
3.00pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[Gove is a very clever man. All anyone is tweeting about is his vocabulary and his historical references. Less about the content.]
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012
2.59pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Formidable Frenchifed pronounciation of insouciance from Gove that is impossible to covey on the Twitter machine
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
2.55pm: Gove and Jay engage in a testy back-and-forth taking in references to Stanley Baldwin in the 20s and more. 3.44pm: Leveson says Gove is entitled to his view and agrees that laws do not necessarily solve problems.
However, they do not seem to concur on how properly to pronounce "elan". However, the judge reasserts the need for a body to assess complaints by those who seek redress from the press.
2.54pm: Former Guardian media correspondent James Robinson has just tweeted: 3.45pm: Gove agrees, citing the need for an improved defamation law and possibly even press regulation.
Michael 'smartest swot in the class' Gove's facial expression says 'there's nothing u can ask me I'm not clever enough to answer' leveson He qualifies this by saying that "sometimes good intentions [with regulation] can result in the curtailment of individual freedom and an unrealistic expectation of how individuals behave".
— james robinson (‏@jamesro47) May 29, 2012 3.51pm: Jay suggests that Gove's remarks on the Leveson inquiry are "straight out of JS Mill".
2.49pm: Gove is asked about Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. Gove replies: "I don't think it's at all abusive to be compared with JS Mill."
He describes Dacre as "one of the most impressive editors of our age" and says he has met him on at least two occasions. Jay responds: "I didn't mean it like that, Mr Gove."
2.47pm: Leveson asks why the public appear to have a low opinion of journalists and politicians. 3.55pm: Leveson tests several ideas of a reconstituted regulator with Gove, for example his idea for a small claims mechanism outside the courts.
"T'was ever thus," replies Gove. He says while journalism "has a certain romance, it hasn't always attracted respectability". The education secretary says some "buccaneering" titles or blogs may decide not be part of a voluntary regulator because they view it as a "cartel".
2.47pm: Leveson ask Gove how, as a former journalist, he has put in place safeguards as a government minister. Gove says he uses "commonsense rules". 4.00pm: Gove says there are two problems with existing law of defamation: the cost, and the fact that the wealthy can use courts to silence dissent.
He says he takes advice from civil servants and parliamentary colleagues, as all MPs should do. Leveson agrees about libel reform, saying: "It's not my mission in life to deny lawyers income, but in this field it seems like a good idea."
2.45pm: Gove went to breakfast on 19 May 2011 with the Times editor, James Harding; Brooks and Murdoch turned up too. 4.02pm: Gove has now completed his evidence.
"It was a pleasant addition," says Gove. 4.03pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
2.44pm: Phone hacking was not discussed with Brooks or Murdoch at meetings on 16 or 26 June, Gove says. Gove has done well to turn this Leveson session into a debate about press principles; glossed over his repeated Murdoch contacts.
2.42pm: Gove says he did discuss the resignation of Andy Coulson as No 10's director of communications at a later meeting in January 2011.
"We had degree of human sympathy that he had had to resign twice," he says.
2.40pm: Gove attended a concert at the O2 arena on 17 December with Rebekah Brooks and friends, the inquiry hears.
He says it is "highly unlikely" the BSkyB bid was discussed at this event.
2.38pm: Gove concedes it would be significant if a News Corp employee had confided to him about the bid before it had been officially announced.
2.37pm: Gove says he did not give the News Corp-BSkyB bid "any particular attention".
Asked for a second time, Gove says he has no recollection of being told the bid was to be launched before it was publicly announced.
Asked a third time, Gove repeats that he has "no recollection of any such conversation of any kind".
He believes it is highly unlikely that the bid was discussed at the 15 June lunch at News International.
2.34pm: Gove says that the BSkyB bid was not discussed within his hearing at a 15 June 2010 board meeting at News International. He was invited to be interviewed by the journalist Daniel Finkelstein over lunch.
2.33pm: The Guardian's Esther Addley has just tweeted:
Well Gove certainly isn't apologetic abt his contacts with Murdoch - 'one of most impressive & significant figs of last 50 years' ‪
— esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
2.31pm: Jay turns to Gove's meeting with Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and others on 19 May 2010, shortly after the Tory government entered No 10.
The discussion touched specifically on education, Gove says, because it is a personal interest of Murdoch's.
2.30pm: Jay points out that Gove has had most meetings with News International, but others with Richard Desmond, Lord Rothermere and the Guardian.
2.30pm: Gove is asked about his meetings with media proprietors and editors.
Government records show that Gove had 11 meetings with senior News Corporation figures between the May 2010 general election and July 2011.
2.27pm: Gove says he has not expressed a view to political colleagues on News Corp's abandoned bid for BSkyB.
Political colleagues "could legitimately infer what my view could be [on the BSkyB bid]," he adds.
2.27pm: Gove describes Rupert Murdoch as "one of the most impressive and significant figures" of the past 50 years.
"He's been succesful in a particular industry" and others have criticised him, Gove adds.
"I enjoyed meeting him while I was a journalist. I also enjoyed meeting him while I was a politician," he says, adding that Murdoch's view on the Eurozone has been vindicated by recent events.
2.23pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[Just realised what Gove's evidence reminds me of: Schoolboy doing a French oral exam. V precise, well-prepared, somehow super-real]
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 29, 2012
2.21pm: Leveson asks Gove whether he was surprised to hear that Rupert Murdoch advised politicians to read the Sun's leader column if they wanted to know his views.
"I wasn't too surprised," answers Gove, explaining that the Sun and the Times are very different papers.
2.21pm: Jay asks whether he believed this was the editor's view or "someone else", referring to Rupert Murdoch.
Gove says it was "emphatically" the view of the editor, who came to a decided position after much discussion.
2.20pm: Gove confirms he was leader writer of the Times for about a decade. He says there was not one occasion when Rupert Murdoch attempted to sway his leader line.
He says it was his role, as leader writer, to express the view he believed the editor held.
2.18pm: Gove is dealing with Jay's questions at lightning speed, with the pair's opening exchanges prompting a strong defence of the press from the education secretary.
2.16pm: Gove says that spin doctors have operated since the Roman republic, citing Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe as examples.
He does not say whether this spin has got better or worse over time, when asked by Leveson, but that it is a fact of politics.
2.14pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Fear for the shorthand writer with Gove's speed of delivery. At the moment he gives evidence as Times home ed, rather than aminister tho'
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
2.13pm: Gove believes the separating of fact and comment in newspapers is "an ideal" that has developed over centuries after Leveson asks how that sits with the Press Complaints Commission code. and
2.11pm: Jay asks Gove if the relationship between politicians and the media is "poisonous". Gove has done a good job to control the Inquiry today. Leveson will have to deal with Gove whenever judge's report comes to cabinet.
Gove strongly disagrees. Some areas are "a little rough-edged", he adds. — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
2.07pm: Gove says he does not agree that the relationship between politicians and journalists is a "purely transactional" one. He says it is "multi-layered", but can understand why Lord Mandelson said it was transactional. and
2.06pm: Michael Gove, the education secretary, has taken the witness stand. Leveson may win today, because he is the judge, but at some point the coalition is going to have to legislate.
2.05pm: Leveson opens by saying that the investigation into how anti-war protester David Lawley-Wakelin was able to access a secure part of the court and interrupt the evidence of Tony Blair yesterday has been completed. — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 29, 2012
The incident has been referred to the director of public prosecutions, he says. 4.11pm: Here is a brief summary of today's evidence to the Leveson inquiry:
12.50pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of home secretary Theresa May's evidence: • Michael Gove described Rupert Murdoch as one of most "impressive and significant" figures of the past 50 years.
• New "commonsense" guidelines on contacts between the press and the police are being drawn up. • The education secretary clashed with Leveson over free expression.
• Gove warned against statutory regulation of press and urged Leveson to "consider carefully" his proposals.
• Gove said he "felt a degree of sympathy" for Andy Coulson after his resignation from No 10.
• Gove denied advance knowledge of News Corporation's £8bn BSkyB bid.
• New "commonsense" guidelines on contacts between the press and the police are being drawn up.
• May telephoned Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan about the review of the Madeleine McCann case in May 2011.• May telephoned Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan about the review of the Madeleine McCann case in May 2011.
• May told Scotland Yard she was "concerned" about its links to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis in July 2011.• May told Scotland Yard she was "concerned" about its links to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis in July 2011.
• May did not not rule out a statutory backstop for a new press regulator, but warned about possible "unintended consequences". • May did not rule out a statutory backstop for a new press regulator, but warned about possible "unintended consequences".
• Senior police officers should be media trained, May told the inquiry.• Senior police officers should be media trained, May told the inquiry.
• May did not read the September 2010 New York Times article on phone hacking. • May did not read the key September 2010 New York Times article on phone hacking.
12.43pm: The inquiry has now broken for lunch and will resume at 2pm with evidence from Michael Gove, the education secretary. 5.16pm: Our full story on Gove's evidence is now live. John Plunkett writes:
12.43pm: May has now completed her evidence. Michael Gove has launched an impassioned defence of Rupert Murdoch, describing the embattled media mogul as "one of the most impressive and significant figures of the last 50 years" in colourful evidence to the Leveson inquiry.
12.43pm: Asked whether she was under pressure behind the scenes to launch the review of the McCann case, May says the Home Office had been working on it for some time. The News Corporation mogul, memorably labelled "not a fit person" to run an international company by a House of Commons select committee, was described by Gove as a "force of nature, a phenomenon, a great man".
May does not directly answer the question, but Jay seems satisfied with the response and moves on. The effusive Gove, who was a leader writer and home editor at the Times, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, said of his one-time ultimate boss: "It's often the case that successful people invite criticism." He added: "As well as being a successful businessman, I think the position he took on, for example the European single currency, has been vindicated by events."
12.41pm: Theresa May had telephone calls with Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan on 11 May 2011 about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the inquiry hears. The minister praised the News Corp chairman and chief executive for moving of his newspapers to Wapping in the 1980s and his investment in satellite television over the subsequent two decades - and kept the inquiry entertained with references to Lord Beaverbrook, Stanley Baldwin, Daniel Defoe and Cicero's O Tempora, O Mores.
May spoke to the pair about the Home Office review of the evidence involved in the disappearance. She says that the Home Office had been discussing with ACPO "for some time" about undertaking a review and it was not given the go-ahead at short notice. He was also unapologetic about a string of meetings with Murdoch and senior News International executives since the Tories came into power in May 2010, saying he had never at any point discussed News Corporation's aborted £8bn bid for BSkyB, which was launched a month later.
May says she does not recall having a conversation with David Cameron on or around the 11 May about the Madeleine McCann disappearance. Neither Brooks nor Mohan indicated that May would "be on the front page of the Sun until the review was announced", she says. Gove's diary indicated that he had 11 meetings with senior News Corp figures between the general election win in May 2010 and July 2011.
This phone call to Brooks and Mohan was at her instigation, May says. He did, however, discuss Andy Coulson's resignation from David Cameron's government at a dinner on 31 January 2011, hosted by Charles Dunstone, where Rebekah Brooks, then still chief executive of News International, was among the guests. Coulson had resigned 10 days earlier.
12.38pm: May says there could be "unintended consequences" for statutory intervention on the press, adding that any solution needs to be tilted in favour of press freedom. "I have a pretty clear recollection that we did touch on Andy Coulson's resignation," Gove told the Leveson inquiry on Tuesday. "It's understandable. Andy Coulson had been a colleague of both of ours and I think both of us felt a degree of sympathy for him having had to resign twice."
12.33pm: Leveson asks May for "first blush views" to provide into those he considers as part of his inquiry, before he reports to the home secretary and her colleagues. The education secretary described Rupert Murdoch as a "force of nature, a phenomenon, a great man. I enjoyed meeting him as a journalist, I subsequently enjoyed meeting him when I was a politician."
May says she hesitates to give a firm example partly because she will be one of the cabinet ministers to decide on Leveson's report. You can read the full story here.
12.30pm: Leveson says his concern is that voluntary regulation that is not seen as effective "is not really regulation of any sort".
12.29pm: May says she would not rule out the new press regulator being based in statute, but warned that it should get the balance right between freedom of the press and providing redress for complainants.
12.28pm: May is now on to press regulation. She says there needs to a be a complaints-handling body, to which groups can lodge complaints as well as individuals.
12.19pm: May is asked whether certain newspapers can "excite" public opinion about immigration.
She says newspaper opinion on immigration is varied so there is not one single theme.
12.14pm: "I don't see the relationship as quite the transactional relationship as you describe," May tells Jay, after the inquiry counsel asks whether both politician and journalist expected something out of their discussions. "It's about the responsibilities operated by the individuals," May adds.
12.13pm: Jay turns his focus to the relationship between politicians and journalists. May says she does not believe there is a "risk inherent" in the relationship.
12.07pm: May says she believes it is important to reinforce police integrity by installing "proper frameworks" for conduct with the media.
She adds that the government-introduced police and crime commissioner will bring a new layer of "democratic accountability" to police forces across the country.
12.05pm: May is asked about the differences in conduct between police officers and politicians and how they deal with the media. She notes that police officers do not have to campaign for re-election, as MPs do.
12.01pm: May says in her witness statement that she expressed "surprise and regret" to Sir Paul Stephenson over his resignation after he received hospitality from a Champneys health spa, but she did not attempt to dissuade him.
I expressed surprise because I'd already had a conversation that weekend with Sir Paul ... and he'd given no hint of a possible resignation and when he later called me to say he had resigned that was a surprising turn of events.
She goes on to praise Stephenson for his leadership of the Met.
11.57am: The question of relationships with media and integrity reached the point where May asked HMIC to look at integrity within Scotland Yard, the inquiry hears.
She clarifies that this was not specifically about the Met police's interactions with the media, but that the issue of hiring Neil Wallis's Chamy Media was of concern at the time.
11.55am: May endorses Filkin's recommendation of "permissable but conditional" relations between police officers and journalists.
11.51am: May says that senior police officers should have "a degree of media training".
This is being examined as part of ACPO's guidance, she adds.
11.49am: In briefing notes, May advised that all forces take note of Filkin's recommendations, not just the Metropolitan police. She says Filkin's report and the ACPO recommendations should be read in conjunction.
11.47am: May is asked about Elisabeth Filkin's report into contact between the press and police officers.
11.41am: May accepted Sir Dennis O'Connor's suggestions on police hospitality in a report to the home secretary on December 2011, Jay says.
11.39am: Jay moves forward to 5 October 2011.
May says she was pleased to hear from Sir Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, that instances of deliberate malpractice at were infrequent and not widespread.
11.35am: If you would like to watch today's hearing, there is a live stream on the Leveson inquiry website.
11.33am: Here is a short summary of May's evidence so far:
• New "commonsense" guidelines on contacts between the press and the police are being drawn up.
• May told Scotland Yard she was 'concerned' about its links to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis in July 2011.
• May did not read the September 2010 New York Times article on phone hacking.
11.26am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
11.24am: May received a briefing note in preparation for any links made between the government's hiring of Coulson and Wallis's employment by Scotland Yard, the inquiry hears.
May was advised to respond that the government was not in charge of investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the News of the World (but Scotland Yard was).
11.22am: May is asked whether Stephenson felt he could not talk to her or any other minister about the Neil Wallis issue.
"I certainly don't recall any such conversation," May says.
11.21am: Jay turns to a memo received by May on 18 July 2011 from a "Mr Timothy" raising questions that may be asked in the Commons about the resignation of Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson.
11.17am: May received a reply from Scotland Yard but told them she "remained concerned" about its links to Wallis and was "disappointed" she had not been informed earlier.
Asked why she took action at this time, May says: "We were in danger of that important relationship and confidence between public and police being damaged."
11.13am: May wrote to the Met police commissioner on 14 July 2011 asking a series of questions about the force's links to Chamy Media, the PR firm set up by former News of the World executive Neil Wallis.
11.11am: May says there were growing concerns about the media regulation system in place in July 2011, but she believed that self-regulation was the way to deal with the media.
The background to the prime minister announcing the Leveson inquiry was questions about the culture of the media as highlighted by the phone-hacking scandal, she adds.
11.07am: May was briefed in July 2011 ahead of an appearance before the Commons home affairs select committee on the day after the Guardian broke the phone-hacking story on Milly Dowler.
11.06am: May was advised to note Watson's letter and not respond.
Jay says that Watson claimed in the letter that "a cleaner had been brought in to eradicate evidence", but did not expand other than to say these were allegations and "not hard evidence".
11.04am: Jay takes May back to the phone-hacking timeline.
He says that on 23 June 2011 May was provided with advice on a letter the Labour MP Tom Watson had written to the head of the Met police investigation into phone hacking, DAC Sue Akers.
11.03am: "Sometimes what is written can be frustrating, sometimes one might question its accuracy, but it's important to let that freedom take place," May says.
She adds that it is important for complainants to be able to get redress from newspapers.
11.02am: Leveson asks May whether she has formed views on a possible future framework for regulation of the press.
She says she has not, but warns against "state interference" of newspapers through a statutory body.
11.01am: A free press is essential in a functioning democracy, May tells the inquiry.
She says there has been a "growing concern" that the Press Complaints Commission does not do the job it was set up to do.
10.58am: Jay suggests the issue was being "parked" and asks to what extent it was linked to the resignation of Coulson.
"Not at all," says May.
10.57am: May is asked why the government did not take active steps to establish whether a former prime minister's phone had been hacked.
She says that the police should be allowed to identify and contact those who had their phones hacked.
It was not felt necessary to take further action against News International before the police investigation was complete, she adds.
10.54am: Jay moves forward to 10 March 2011, when May says that ministers took the view that phone hacking was under ongoing scrutiny by Scotland Yard.
10.52am: Jay asks whether there was a national security element to the phone-hacking scandal, given that at least one former cabinet minister had been targeted.
May says it was not because the mobile phones targeted were not secure so "there should not be material security concern on those telephones".
Pressed by Jay, May says that no restricted material is sent to or from mobile phones that are not secure.
She adds there would also be an understanding that matters of national security should not be discussed on unsecured telephones.
10.47am: In a note of the call between Godwin and May, as read by Jay, Godwin reassured the home secretary that the Operation Weeting investigation was under control and that it was important for Scotland Yard to conduct it, rather than an external force.
10.44am: May had a conversation with acting Met police commissioner Tim Godwin on the telephone, says Jay.
The home secretary went to see Alison Leavitt, the senior CPS official, the following week, the inquiry hears.
Leavitt told May that the police had used a "very different definition of phone hacking" to the definition the CPS believed should now be the case.
10.43am: Jay asks about the resignation of Andy Coulson, the No 10 director of communications and former News of the World editor, on 21 January 2011.
10.42am: A file from the Met police on hacking allegations was sent to the CPS on 12 November 2010 after interviewing several journalists under caution.
The director of public prosecutions advised that there was no admissable evidence against journalists.
May says she was aware that there was no further information forthcoming from the interviews with police.
10.39am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
New police guidelines on hospitality flashed up on Leveson screens. Based on principle of "blanket non-acceptabliity" of all gifts
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
10.38am: Jay says it is clear that the issue of phone hacking had already become "highly politicised".
May says debates in the House of Commons will always have political aspects, but her job is to look at the facts and make a decision based on that.
The decision was that police are investigating and it was up to them whether there was sufficient evidence to investigate further, she says.
10.36am: May says it is important that the police can complete their investigations, and then judgements can be made.
Jay suggests that a cogent body of evidence was emerging in September 2010 that warranted a further police investigation, including the "for Neville" email.
May maintains that it is for the police, not the home secretary, to decide whether there is fresh evidence worthy of investigation.
10.32am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Police banned from taking hospitality bar light refreshments and trivial gifts bannedunder interim ACPO guidelines unveiled at Leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
and
Police also required to make a note of all meetings with journalists, under interim ACPO guidelines unveiled at #Leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
10.31am: May says the article "suggested there might be further evidence available" which is why her office asked the Met police to look into it.
10.30am: May says she saw reports of the New York Times article but did not read the piece itself.
She says she felt it appropriate to make sure action was taken into the report, when asked why she did not ask to see it.
May adds:
It's not for the home secretary to decide whether information that appears in a newspaper should be investigated.
10.28am: Jay turns to the police and phone-hacking allegations.
May confirms that she assumed office in May 2010 and the first time that the issue came across her radar was when the New York Times published a detailed article in September of that year.
10.27am: Leveson asks whether it is sufficient to note the general topic of a conversation rather than the content.
May says for the "vast majority" of discussions only an general topic note will be taken.
10.26am: Our full story on the CPS's decision not to prosecute journalist Amelia Hill is now live. Dan Roberts writes:
The Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to prosecute a police officer alleged to have passed information about the phone-hacking scandal to the Guardian during early stages of the inquiry.
There was also no action taken against Amelia Hill, a Guardian reporter interviewed under caution last September during the same investigation into leaks.
Previously, the police were widely criticised by press freedom campaigners for attempting to use the Official Secrets Act to force the Guardian to disclose details of its confidential sources.
Amelia is one of the two Guardian journalists who first revealed that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked by the News of The World.
On Tuesday the CPS said there was "insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction on an allegation of misconduct in a public office". It added that it believed there was "sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to offences contrary to section 55 of the Data Protection Act" but that a prosecution for this is "not required in the public interest".
A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We welcome the Crown Prosecution Service's sensible decision to abandon this worrying attempt to criminalise legitimate contact between journalists and confidential sources. Nevertheless, the paper makes no comment on the validity of the Met police assertion that the officer it identified was Amelia's source in this case."
The CPS decision follows recently published guidelines on how to deal with cases involving the media, which were updated in April. These state that prosecutors should take into account whether there was "any element of corruption in the conduct in question" and whether the media conduct is "capable of disclosing that a criminal offence has been committed".
"Journalists, and those who work with them, are not afforded special status under the criminal law, but the public interest served by their actions is a relevant factor in deciding whether they should be prosecuted in an individual case," said CPS director Keir Starmer.
"Under the guidelines, prosecutors are required to assess whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality before commencing a prosecution. If so, a prosecution is less likely."
Amelia Hill has always maintained that she has never paid a police officer for information or obtained information corruptly. She was only interviewed by the police once, under caution, last September, and has never been arrested.
Previous police attempts to pursue the alleged leaks from Operation Weeting using the Official Secrets Act were also implicitly criticised by the CPS and the director of public prosecutions last September who revealed they had not been consulted. At the time, the attempt was criticised by almost every national newspaper and many leading politicians.
The Met later dropped its attempt to use the Official Secrets Act but said it would continue to investigate "unacceptable" leaks from Operation Weeting.
10.24am: May says that different guidance on relations with journalists was being operated in different police forces.
May says it is important that the new guidance does not usher in a "chilling effect" and that it brings common sense to the fore.
10.23am: Jay turns to new guidance on relationships between journalists and police officers.
May says she welcomes ACPO's report in this area.
Police will speak to journalists and journalists will speak to the police. There are a number of occasions where police may find it helpful to speak to journalists ... but this brings a clearer framework for police officers.
The ACPO guidance recommends an expectation that all contact between police officers and journalists be noted in some way.
10.21am: The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has tweeted about the CPS's decision not to prosecute journalist Amelia Hill:
CPS confirm no payment sought or received. Public interest in stories outweighed any possible offence under DPA#leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 29, 2012
and
CPS: information was confidential, but caused no harm to cops' inquiry."Damage minimal" & wd hv bn public domain anyway.
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 29, 2012
and
Summary: CPS seems to have applied its own sensible new guidelines re charging journalists bit.ly/I5x5BY#leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 29, 2012
10.16am: Jay asks May about the ACPO guidance on gifts, gratuities and hospitality, which is being drafted.
He say the general move is towards non-acceptablilty, except in exceptional circumstances where such benefits are put in a register.
May says she welcomes the move towards greater consistency.
10.14am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
May written statement: I have received Acpo proposals on hospitality and will answer questions on this #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 29, 2012
10.12am: Here is the full statement from Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the Crown Prosecution Service decision not to charge Guardian journalist Amelia Hill and a Metropolitan police officer over leak claims:
On the 2 April 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service requesting charging advice in relation to two suspects. The first is a serving Metropolitan police officer in the Operation Weeting team whose name is not in the public domain. He is currently suspended. The second suspect is Amelia Hill, a journalist who writes for the Guardian newspaper.
The allegation is that the police officer passed confidential information about phone-hacking cases to the journalist.
All the evidence has now carefully been considered and I have decided that neither the police officer nor the journalist should face a prosecution. The following paragraphs explain the reasons for my decision. It is important to bear in mind that the question I have addressed is whether there is enough evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Those are the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is not my function to make findings of fact and I have not done so. Both the police officer and Ms. Hill are entitled to be presumed innocent and that is the basis upon which I have approached this case.
In reaching my decision, I have applied the interim guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media, which were recently published by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The suspects have been considered separately, as different considerations arise in relation to each of them.
Between 4 April 2011 and 18 August 2011, Ms Hill wrote 10 articles which were published in the Guardian. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that these articles contained confidential information derived from Operation Weeting, including the names of those who had been arrested. I am also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the police officer disclosed that information to Ms Hill.
I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence against either suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the common law offence of misconduct in a public office or conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
In this case, there is no evidence that the police officer was paid any money for the information he provided.
Moreover, the information disclosed by the police officer, although confidential, was not highly sensitive. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. It did not compromise the investigation. And the information in question would probably have made it into the public domain by some other means, albeit at some later stage.
In those circumstances, I have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in the police officer's case because his alleged conduct is not capable of reaching the high threshold necessary to make out the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. It follows that there is equally no realistic prospect of a conviction against Ms. Hill for aiding and abetting the police officer's conduct.
However, the information disclosed was personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I am satisfied that there is arguably sufficient evidence to charge both the police officer and Ms Hill with offences under section 55 of that act, even when the available defences are taken into account.
I have therefore gone on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. There are finely balanced arguments tending both in favour of and against prosecution.
Journalists and those who interact with them have no special status under the law and thus the public interest factors have to be considered on a case by case basis in the same way as any other. However, in cases affecting the media, the DPP's interim guidelines require prosecutors to consider whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality alleged.
So far as Ms Hill is concerned, the public interest served by her alleged conduct was that she was working with other journalists on a series of articles which, taken together, were capable of disclosing the commission of criminal offences, were intended to hold others to account, including the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service, and were capable of raising and contributing to an important matter of public debate, namely the nature and extent of the influence of the media. The alleged overall criminality is the breach of the Data Protection Act, but, as already noted, any damage caused by Ms Hill's alleged disclosure was minimal. In the circumstances, I have decided that in her case, the public interest outweighs the overall criminality alleged.
Different considerations apply to the police officer. As a serving police officer, any claim that there is a public interest in his alleged conduct carries considerably less weight than that of Ms Hill. However, there are other important factors tending against prosecution, including as already noted, the fact that no payment was sought or received, and that the disclosure did not compromise the investigation. Moreover, disclosing the identity of those who are arrested is not, of itself, a criminal offence. It is only unlawful in this case because the disclosure also breached the Data Protection Act.
In the circumstances, I have decided that a criminal prosecution is not needed against either Ms Hill or the police officer.
However, in light of my conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting the police officer for an offence under the Data Protection Act, I have written to the Metropolitan Police Service and to the IPCC recommending that they consider bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.
Alison Levitt QC,
Principal legal adviser to the DPP
10.09am: Asked about policing in London, May says the Metropolitan police authority and chief constable will decide where to allocate resources in consultation with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
10.06am: The Guardian journalist Amelia Hill and a Metropolitan police officer will not face charges over leak allegations relating to Scotland Yard's phone-hacking investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
May says if there is a strong feeling on the part of the home secretary, or an outcry from the public, the IPCC can be asked to investigate.
10.06am: Jay asks May about the IPCC.
She says it is independent and decides what and how to investigate. However, she can ask the body to undertake particular pieces of work.
10.03am: Jay asks May about her role as head of the police force.
She says she sets the policy background, but funding for individual operational areas such as counter-terrorism is a matter for the police.
10.01am: The home secretary, Theresa May, has taken the witness stand.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.
9.56am: Esther Addley continues:
Bag searches at door to court for first time and special branch chaps at rear, where intruder got in #Leveson
— esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
and
May has just arrived, with entourage of seven #Leveson
— esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
9.53am: The Guardian's Esther Addley has just tweeted:
Beefed up security at #Leveson today following Blair debacle yday. Theresa May and Michael Gove today's star turns
— esther addley (@estheraddley) May 29, 2012
9.49am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
The education secretary Michael Gove, a longstanding friend and admirer of Rupert Murdoch, will give evidence today alongside his cabinet colleague, the home secretary Theresa May.
Gove, a former Times journalist, has publicly described Murdoch as a "great man" and "force of nature". Last month, Murdoch praised Gove's "distinguished record" as a Times journalist and revealed that the pair had discussed the prospect of News International opening an academy school in east London.
Government records show that Gove had 11 meetings with senior News Corp figures between the May 2010 general election and July 2011.
Earlier this year he became the first minister to speak out about the danger of freedom of speech being harmed by the "chilling atmosphere" created by the Leveson inquiry. He also expressed admiration for the launch of the Sun on Sunday, saying: "Whenever anyone sets up a new newspaper – as Rupert Murdoch has with the Sun on Sunday – they should be applauded and not criticised."
Theresa May is likely to be quizzed about police handling of phone-hacking allegations after she became home secretary in May 2010.
May is expected to be asked whether some politicians, senior Scotland Yard officers and media executives were too close.
The inquiry begins at 10am.
Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons.