This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/29/leveson-inquiry-williams-maberly-surtees-live

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Leveson inquiry: Phillip Williams, Mark Maberly, Keith Surtees - live Leveson inquiry: Phillip Williams, Mark Maberly, Keith Surtees - live
(40 minutes later)
10.58am: The police investigation subsequently revealed two interceptions by Goodman, and two by Mulcaire, relating to royal household phones.
10.57am: The BBC's Ross Hawkins has just tweeted:
Philip Williams at #leveson : Police in 06 were aware phone hacking could be a technique used across all media & poss by criminals
— Ross Hawkins (@rosschawkins) February 29, 2012
10.56am: What Williams wrote in 2006: "I suspect the media world may well be aware of this vulnerability ... more sinister side is knowledge could be used by criminals ... to threaten national security."
Williams says he feared it could be a technique used across all media. However, he says "at no time did any of the phone companies once they were aware of the risks did they come back and say this is happening all over our system".
10.53am: Rupert Murdoch as just made a surprise intervention into the debate about the Metropolitan police's admission that it loaned Rebekah Brooks a police horse:
Now they are blaming R Brooks from saving an old horse from the glue factory.What next?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) February 29, 2012
10.52am: "This was new to them, they didn't realise this could be done," says Williams of the phone companies.
"They are telling us it's news to them but people were able to do this. Their own engineering software, although it could show what we called the rogue numbers coming into the voicemail number, it had difficulty telling them what was going on in the voicemail box. They couldn't tell us if message existed in the voicemail box."
They had to use more specialist software to get more accurate picture of what was going in on Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton's voicemail.
10.51am: Williams stresses: "I needed to build my case before I actually confronted the issue."
10.50am: Williams said he could have spoken to Goodman - "that option was open to me but I didn't believe I had enough evidence. He may have said no comment and that would have been the end of the matter."
He says he wanted to have "as strong a case as possible ... I didn't believe I had the evidence."
Williams said he needed to build his case with the help of the phone companies. Key, or so he thought, was that intercepted message was previously unlistened to.
10.50am: Williams says: "I was aware there was potentially evidence – untested – that some members of the royal household may have been having their unique voicemails intercepted. In terms of it actually being a new unlistened-to message, I hadn't got evidence of that."
He adds: "I was not going to consider doing nothing. I very much wanted to do something. Me and my team put in a huge amount of effort maintaining the support of the victims. We wanted to bring this to court to demonstrate it was absolutely a criminal offence and not to be tolerated."
10.47am: Police strategy at the time involved asking Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, one of the private secretaries to Princes William and Harry, not to pick up a voicemail and see if it was picked up by one of the rogue numbers.
Williams says he wanted to save potential victims – the royals – from embarrassment if case came to court. He did not want the content of their phone calls to be revealed.
To maintain the confidence of my victim I wanted to be able to assure them if at all possible if they were going to be a victim in my case it would be solely on the fact technically that one of the messages had been intercepted, not the who or what it was about.
10.36am: At this stage, Williams says he alerted his supervisory officers that more resources would be required.
I was raising the potential public or media spin that might be put on it that sometimes we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, why are we using anti-terrorism officers to investigate this offence that has nothing to do with terrorism. Equally there were valid arguments for why we should retain it.
Williams adds that he wanted the inquiry to be kept within SO13 because he feared leaks would jeopardise the operation by warning the suspects and alerting the media.
10.35am: The investigation identified five of six potential hacking victims, all within the royal household.
It concluded at the time "This ability was highly unlikely to be limited to Clive Goodman alone. It is probably quite widespread amongst those who would be interested in such access. There is a much wider security issue within the UK and potentially worldwide."
10.34am: Williams says the key to investigation was that the interception took place prior to the recipient listening to the message.
He said that was the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service.
My belief is consistently what the law said for this to be a cirmnal offence it had to be a new and unread message. We coined this analogy the 'unopened envelope on a desk'.
10.32am: At a review of the case on 4 April 2006, charges were considered for interception under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and under the Computer Misuse Act. The latter was later discarded.
10.27am: The private secretaries indicated that they were willing to co-operate with a prosection.
10.27am: Williams's log from 30 January 2006 said:
The implications are quite far-reaching because Vodaphone have apparently not appreciated that this (phone hacking) was even possible...
If this is possible it is likely to be far more widespread than CG (Clive Goodman), hence serious implications for security confidence in Vodaphone voicemail and perhaps the same for other service providers.

Jay says this was "prescient".
10.26am: his was significant says Jay because Vodafone "did not know" this was possible. "At the time that was exactly the position with Vodafone," confirms Williams.
He says Vodafone said it was "not possible" to do this. Only because we persisted did they discover that this was possible, says Williams. "This was consistent with other phone companies at this time."
10.23am: Discussions with Vodafone revealed that several numbers were calling in to phones belonging to two private secretaries to Princes William and Harry.
One of the numbers was traced to the home phone of News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman.
10.22am: Williams says he was picked as senior investigating officer by Clarke because phone hacking was a "kindred matter", not a core anti-terrorism investigation.
He says the first stage of the investigation was "What is actually happening here?" He says it was not known definitively that there had been the interception of voicemails.
10.21am: Operation Caryatid was launched in December 2005 after members of the royal household reported fears that their voicemails had been hacked by the News of the World.
10.19am: SO13 oversaw the 2006 phone-hacking investigation, Operation Caryatid.
Williams says SO13 was under "absolutely huge pressure" in relation to its anti-terrorist activities in 2006 following the 7/7 bombings.
10.12am: In 2006, Williams was a member of SO13, the Met's anti-terrorism unit.10.12am: In 2006, Williams was a member of SO13, the Met's anti-terrorism unit.
The head of SO13 at the time was DAC Peter Clarke, who reported to AC Andy Hayman.The head of SO13 at the time was DAC Peter Clarke, who reported to AC Andy Hayman.
DAC John Yates was responsible for the specialist crime unit at the time and had no involvement in specialist operations, including SO13.DAC John Yates was responsible for the specialist crime unit at the time and had no involvement in specialist operations, including SO13.
SO13 had four investigation teams.
10.10am: Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams takes the stand.10.10am: Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams takes the stand.
10.06am: The inquiry has begun. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, says he will deal with the police investigations into phone hacking in 2006 and 2009.10.06am: The inquiry has begun. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, says he will deal with the police investigations into phone hacking in 2006 and 2009.
He says the police officers' statements to previous reviews will be used as evidence but they must be redacted before they can be published.He says the police officers' statements to previous reviews will be used as evidence but they must be redacted before they can be published.
9.54am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.9.54am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
After criticism of the police yesterday by Simon Hughes and Chris Jefferies, today the inquiry will hear evidence from serving Met officers Detective Superintendent Philip Williams, who led the original phone-hacking investigation, Detective Inspector Mark Maberly and Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Surtees.After criticism of the police yesterday by Simon Hughes and Chris Jefferies, today the inquiry will hear evidence from serving Met officers Detective Superintendent Philip Williams, who led the original phone-hacking investigation, Detective Inspector Mark Maberly and Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Surtees.
Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons. Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons.