Leveson Inquiry
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC1
22 12 2011
Dear Lord Leveson,
Piers Morgan indubitably lied to the Inquiry (20 December) when he claimed that he had never illicitly received information from the police. On 25 November I submitted a series of complaints backed by documentation to the Inquiry. These were definitely received by the Inquiry because an acknowledgement was sent to me.
My submission included a letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC in which he admitted that the Mirror had received information from the police illicitly. I include a copy of that letter below with the relevant passage highlighted. As Morgan refers to it in his letter to the PCC, I also send you a copy of the article I wrote in response to the Mirror which Morgan refused to publish.
Because Morgan gave his evidence to the Inquiry under oath, he added perjury to his original criminal offence of illicitly receiving information from the Metropolitan Police. I ask you to take action against Morgan for this perjury and to recall him for questioning about his receipt of illicit information from the Metropolitan Police, both in terms of that he admitted to in the letter to the PCC and the extent of the practice generally during his editorship of the News of the World and the Daily Mirror.
In my submission I asked to give evidence in person. You have failed to answer that request to date. However, I see from the Inquiry website that you are seeking, amongst others things, the following for module 2 of the Inquiry:
“The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of the victims of crime and the public more generally, who feel that they have been adversely affected (perhaps through a data leak or breach, or through the reporting of a case) by the current relationship between the press and the police, with examples where possible. The Inquiry would also be interested to receive submissions in relation to this issue on whether it is felt that the current investigation and complaint regime are adequate to properly address instances of this type”. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-2.pdf
The evidence which I have already given the Inquiry relating to Piers Morgan and the subsequent failure of Scotland Yard to meaningfully investigate the crime – the officer responsible Det Supt Jeff Cutis admitted to me that the “investigation” had been closed without anyone at the Mirror being questioned – indubitably falls into this category of information. This case has the great advantage for you of having objective and categoric proof of both the Mirror’s receipt of illicit information from the Metropolitan Police and the failure of the Metropolitan Police to meaningfully investigate my complaint about the illicit disclosure of information. The full details of these events were supplied in my submission of 25 November.
You are asking for applications for Core Participant status for Module 2 of the Inquiry to be made by 13 January. Please treat this email and my original submission of 25 November as an application for Core Participant Status.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email by return.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
————————————
RE: Morgan committed perjury at the Inquiry/Application for Core Participent statusWednesday, 4 January, 2012 17:12
From: “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”Add sender to ContactsTo: “‘robert henderson’”, “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”
Dear Mr Henderson
Your e-mail of 22 December requesting Core Participant Status has been passed to the Legal Team. As you may be aware Rule 5 of the Inquiries Rules 2006 deals with Core Participants in these terms:
‘(1) The chairman may designate a person as a core participant at any time during the course of the inquiry, provided that person consents to being so designated.
(2) In deciding whether to designate a person as a core participant, the chairman must in particular consider whether—
(a) the person played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates;
(b) the person has a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates; or
(c) the person may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report.
(3) A person ceases to be a core participant on —
(a) the date specified by the chairman in writing; or
(b) the end of the inquiry.’
As you will see, Core Participants are those considered to be those closest to the issues being considered by the Inquiry with the consequence that a Core Participant will have a more active role in the Inquiry than a participant who is only a witness. They are usually (although not invariably) represented and the legal representatives provide the point of contact with the Inquiry.
Before your application is placed before the Chairman, I would be grateful if your would confirm in writing how, considering the matters set out above, you consider you fall within the definition of a Core Participant for Module 2. Please let me have your confirmation by 13th January.
For the avoidance of doubt, you can in any event, submit evidence to the Inquiry and you do not need to be a Core Participant to do so. The inquiry will consider the evidence you provide although this does not necessarily mean that you will be called to give evidence.
Kind regards
Sharron Hiles
Senior Assistant Solicitor to the Inquiry
————————————
Sharron Hiles
Senior Assistant Solicitor to the Inquiry
Leveson Inquiry
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC1
9 January 2012
Dear Ms Hiles,
Thank you for your email of 4 January. I indubitably fall within the definition of a Core Participant for Module 2. This is because:
1. I provide irrefutable proof of Piers Morgan’s receipt of information illicitly from the police when editor of the Mirror – the Piers Morgan letter to the PCC which I have already released to the Inquiry
2. The proof of Morgan’s receipt of information illicitly demonstrates that Morgan committed perjury when he appeared before the Inquiry. Morgan’s response to questions about receiving information illicitly from the police begins at line 20 of page 86 of the Inquiry transcript. It runs
. 20 Q. Okay. Can I ask you, please, about paying police
21 officers. Is that something which happened at the
22 Daily Mirror whilst you were editor?
23 A. I have no reason to believe so, no.
24 Q. Are you saying by that that it was not brought to your
25 attention?
Page 87
1 A. I’ve never been made aware of any evidence for that at
2 all.
3. I am directly involved because the information Morgan received illicitly concerned me.
4. I have provided evidence to the Inquiry that the journalist who received the information from the police initially was Jeff Edwards, chief crime correspondent of the Mirror and Chairman of the Crime Reporters’ Association. How do I know it was him? Edwards wrote the Mirror story about me which led to me to my complaint to the PCC which in turn prompted Morgan’s letter to the PCC in which he admits receiving information illicitly from the police. I supplied by email a copy of the Mirror story with my original submission to the Inquiry of 25 November 2011 and a paper copy was sent on 28 November 2011.
5. I have provided evidence to the Inquiry of police corruption in the investigation of my complaint to the police that Morgan, Edwards and the Mirror received information from illicitly the police . D-Supt Jeff Curtis of Scotland Yard supposedly investigated my complaint but failed to interview Morgan, Edwards or anyone else at the Mirror. Ergo, no meaningful investigation was carried out despite the police having Morgan’s letter in which he admitted receiving information illicitly from the police.
All of these matters fall categorically within the Core 2 remit. I can also, if required, testify to every matter covered by the Inquiry bar the phone-hacking. I have been the subject of vast media abuse, the PCC have utterly failed me and the police have refused to investigate meaningfully or at all other complaints of criminal behaviour I have made about the Mirror. These matters are covered in detail in my original submission of 25 November 2011.
I must be just about the best witness you could have. I have fundamentally important evidence to give, I can prove what a say beyond any doubt and have direct and personal experience of most of the media abuses the Inquiry is addressing. As a bonus, if I am called you will not run into the problems you have encountered with other witnesses where they have claimed they cannot answer questions because they might incriminate themselves or reveal a source.
Your email worries me somewhat because it suggests that you may not have my original submission of 25 November. Therefore, I have re-sent this to you by separate email.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email by return and confirm that you have my original submission of 25 November.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
——————————-
RE: Morgan committed perjury at the Inquiry/Application for Core Participent statusMonday, 9 January, 2012 11:48
From: “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”Add sender to ContactsTo: “‘robert henderson’”, “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”
Dear Mr Henderson
Thank you for your e-mail and your further e-mails. Your application will be considered by the Chairman in due course with the other applications for Core Participant Status.
Kind regards
Sharron Hiles
