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/jun/01/jeremy-hunt-texts-leveson

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Jeremy Hunt: how did Leveson get hold of his texts? Jeremy Hunt: how did Leveson get hold of his texts?
(40 minutes later)
Under the probing stare of Leveson inquiry lead counsel Robert Jay QC, Jeremy Hunt was forced on Thursday to explain the deeper meaning behind texts such as the one he sent to James Murdoch on 31 March 2011: "Many congratulations on the promotion although I am sure u will really miss Ofcom in NY! Jeremy". Under questioning from Robert Jay, the Leveson inquiry's lead counsel, Jeremy Hunt was forced on Thursday to explain the meaning behind texts such as the one he sent to James Murdoch on 31 March 2011: "Many congratulations on the promotion although I am sure u will really miss Ofcom in NY! Jeremy".
But what intrigued many other viewers and listeners at the inquiry was a simpler question: how did Jay, and the inquiry team, get hold of the texts? Had the phone-hacking inquiry somehow carried out its own version of the "dark arts"? But what intrigued many was this: how did Jay, and the inquiry team, get hold of the texts? Had the phone-hacking inquiry somehow carried out its own version of the "dark arts"?
The answer turns out to be quite simple: they asked him for them, using the inquiry's legal powers.The answer turns out to be quite simple: they asked him for them, using the inquiry's legal powers.
"We have an order called a section 21 order under the Inquiries Act which gives the inquiry authority to ask for that information," said a spokesman for Lord Justice Leveson. "They are asked to provide it. If it's emails, they are already held, and they're provided. And individuals are asked to provide information from their phones." A section 21 order under the Inquiries Act gives the inquiry the authority to request that information, said a spokesman for Lord Justice Leveson. "They are asked to provide it. If it's emails, they are already held, and they're provided. And individuals are asked to provide information from their phones," he said.
Section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 gives the chair very broad powers: "The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice (a) to give evidence; (b) to produce any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry." That carries the same weight as any legal subpeona. Section 21 has very broad powers: "The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice (a) to give evidence; (b) to produce any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry." That carries the same weight as any legal subpeona.
Emails are relatively easy to supply: every large organisation keeps regular backups of its store of messages. News International has carried out a gigantic trawl of the backups of the emails sent between its staff, and between them and people outside the organisation. The results of those trawls has led to a number of arrests in ongoing police investigations. Similarly, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, where Hunt is in charge, uses similar systems – and the emails sent through his departmental iPhone were all stored. Emails are relatively easy to supply: every large organisation keeps regular backups of its store of messages. News International has carried out a huge trawl of emails sent internally and externally, resulting in a number of arrests in police investigations. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport, where Hunt is in charge,
But text messages are different, because those go over the mobile phone networks – and the operators do not retain them. Only information about the sender and receiver of text is ever retained, and that is thrown away after 18 months. Hunt's texts, as detailed by the inquiry, go back to 18 October 2010 – just at the 18-month limit. uses similar systems – and the emails sent through his departmental iPhone were all stored.
However, phone networks confirmed on Friday that they did not provide the data to the inquiry. Instead, it emerges, Hunt himself provided them. A DCMS spokesperson explained: "The content of the texts was still on his phone. So they were downloaded from there and submitted to the inquiry." But text messages are different because those go over the mobile phone networks and operators do not retain them. Only information about the sender and receiver of text is kept and that is discarded after 18 months. Hunt's texts, as detailed by the inquiry, go back to 18 October 2010 – just at the 18-month limit.
The news that Hunt apparently hasn't changed his phone in 18 months, yet has not sent so many texts that he has filled the available space, makes the dozens sent to Murdoch and his associates especially interesting. The next question may be: were News Corporation staff disproportionately represented among those he contacted? The answer to that might emerge in the coming weeks. The DCMS explained: "The content of the texts was still on his phone. So they were downloaded from there and submitted to the inquiry."
The news that Hunt apparently hasn't changed his phone in 18 months, yet has not sent so many texts that he has filled the available space, makes the dozens sent to Murdoch and his associates especially interesting. The next question may be: were News Corp staff disproportionately represented among those he contacted? The answer to that might emerge in the coming weeks.