Lord Justice Leveson: 'Sensible strategic consideration' to make part one go as far as possible
The chair of the Leveson inquiry has questioned whether the second part of the investigation, which will look at the extent of unlawful conduct within news organisations, should go ahead.
Lord Justice Leveson said in a ruling yesterday that, while he had not ruled out any option, it seemed likely that part two would be "delayed for very many months, if not longer" and that it seemed to be "in everyone's interests" for the first part of the inquiry to go as far as possible.
When the Leveson inquiry was set up last year, it was split in two halves to avoid prejudicing any eventual trials. The first part has been looking broadly at the "culture, practices and ethics of the press, relationships between national newspapers and politicians, relationships between the press and the police and the failure to act on previous warnings about misconduct". It is due to report later this year.
The second part was expected to focus on "the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within, among other media organisations, News International", the extent of alleged corruption and management failure.
Leveson said it covered "similar ground" to the ongoing Metropolian police investigations – Operations Elveden (police payments), Weeting (phone hacking) and Tuleta (computer hacking). He said: "There is, at present, a substantial police investigation into the subject matter of the inquiry which has led to many arrests and may, in due course, lead to prosecutions.
"It is very important that any inquiry does not prejudice either the police investigation or any potential prosecution to such extent as thwarts the investigation or renders a prosecution so unfair as to constitute an abuse of process.
"I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300 million emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that part two of this inquiry will be delayed for very many months, if not longer.
"In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone’s interests that part one goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the inquiry has been conducted, the report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into part two."
He concluded: "It is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this."
Leveson also raised the issue of the "enormous cost" that part two of the inquiry would bring, and said it would "trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct".
By the end of January, the inquiry had cost £2 million. Details of inquiry expenditure are published on a quarterly basis.
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
