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 2 Version 3
Leveson inquiry: Phillip Williams, Mark Maberly, Keith Surtees - live Leveson inquiry: Phillip Williams, Mark Maberly, Keith Surtees - live
(40 minutes later)
12.18pm: Jay asks why the Met's production order didn't include Mulcaire's safe and computer.
Willliams says it covered "all relevant material".
12.17pm: Leveson tells Wiliams notifying victims it is no different than if the police foiled an armed robbery at a bank before it took place.
"I can understand this is not an easy job, Mr Wiliams. If you thought a bank was a potential target of an armed robbery but you foiled it so the bank was never touched would you call the bank a victim of a conspiracy to rob?" asks Leveson.
"Yes," says Williams.
"So why is it any different to those on your list when it is abundantly clear Mr Mulcaire is collecting phone numbers and pin numbers and all this detail, he is probably doing it for someone else and therefore he is conspiring with them probably to use this information to access voicemails?"
Williams says: "In hindsight I entirely agree … I totally understand when people look back they think more people should have been informed."
12.16pm: Lord Sugar has responded to Rupert Murdoch's tweet about the rebekah Brooks horse story:
@rupertmurdoch RT..about R Brooks saving horse fromglue factory!..be fair boss if it was Cheerie Blair or Sarah Brown wouldSUN run story ?
— Lord Sugar (@Lord_Sugar) February 29, 2012
12.12pm: Williams says he hoped the phone companies would tell customers whose voicemails may have been intercepted.
In fact, it took the networks took almost six years to tell customers.
12.11pm: Williams says: "At the time, my mindset was that to be a victim, the voicemail had to be unopened. I was looking for way of making it public."
He adds that the strategy of not telling potential victims was not about limiting the story.
12.08pm: Williams confirms the police decided to notify only four categories of victims whose voicemails had been called: MPs, the royal household, the police and the military.
12.03pm: Williams says the mobile companies were not telling him phone hacking was a big problem.
Lord Justice Leveson is sceptical how phone companies could ever check what was going on – and might not want to reveal full scale of problem for commercial reasons.
Williams says: "I totally accept it was very challenging for them. Some of them couldn't do it. Vodafone and O2 had a better software system."
11.57am: Jay asks why all 418 names in the police list of potential victims were not contacted.
Williams replies:
All I got there was a snapshot in time of material we happened to receive. There could well be a wider pool of people ... this strategy was aimed at the full potential of those potential victims might be. I was hoping to address that much wider potential, which would have included everybody on that list.
Williams's memo at the time said contacting victims would be "resource intensive", and the hacking was concerned with obtaining "salacious gossip".
11.53am: The police sent a production order to all five UK mobile phone companies asking for details on calls to a list of unique voicemail numbers (UVNs).
"You were beginning to build up clear picture of access to voicemail by others in the News of the World?" asks Jay.
Williams says data was in respect of Goodman and Mulcaire, and "hub number" at the News of the World. "We had information the 'hub number' was calling these unique voicemail numbers," he adds.
Williams said police wanted to know if it was Goodman or Mulcaire ringing from there, and what the phone data was behind that hub number.
"The number ended 5354," says Jay. "Does that ring a bell?" Williams can't remember.
11.52am: Jay says police adopted an "overly cautious approach" to potential victims given the "persistent pattern of behaviour" by Mulcaire.
"Everything he is doing is with the objective [of accessing voicemail]," he adds.
11.42am: Williams says he launched a financial review of Goodman and Mulcaire as the police were considering attempting to show that their assets were the proceeds of crime.
He says says the only amount they could definitively prove were Mulcaire's proceeds from phone hacking was the £12,300 payments from Goodman cited in the prosecution.
11.37am: Jay asks Williams about whether there was evidence of the involvement of the News of the World editor, Andy Coulson, or other journalists in phone hacking.
Williams says:
We were all aware what the speculation was and how this might be further than these two men because that was part of our discussion whether there might be other defendants. At that time we didn't have evidence.
A CPS memo of a meeting in August 2006 said the police did not have evidence Mulcaire was working with other NoW journalists.
11.37am: The inquiry has now resumed.11.37am: The inquiry has now resumed.
11.28am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.11.28am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
11.28am: Jay suggests the evidence of who requested the work was the corner name.11.28am: Jay suggests the evidence of who requested the work was the corner name.
Williams says: "It was indicitive, I agree, that could well be the person. From my point of view, as an investigation, I would need to build that case to actually prove that in court."Williams says: "It was indicitive, I agree, that could well be the person. From my point of view, as an investigation, I would need to build that case to actually prove that in court."
Jay asks: "Did you associate any of the corner names, which were first names, with any employees of the News of the World?"Jay asks: "Did you associate any of the corner names, which were first names, with any employees of the News of the World?"
Williams says: "They could be from any organisation."Williams says: "They could be from any organisation."
11.22am: Jay asks if Williams had seen the "corner names" in Mulcaire's notes. He says yes.11.22am: Jay asks if Williams had seen the "corner names" in Mulcaire's notes. He says yes.
However, he says to build a case he would need substantive evidence of the identity of the corner names.However, he says to build a case he would need substantive evidence of the identity of the corner names.
Jay suggests that was a "pretty strong clue".Jay suggests that was a "pretty strong clue".
Williams replies: "That was our supposition. The names in the corner were the person who potentially either instructed them or for whom Mulcaire was doing the work."Williams replies: "That was our supposition. The names in the corner were the person who potentially either instructed them or for whom Mulcaire was doing the work."
What was absolutely absent, we didn't see anything coming through into Mr Mulcaire that would say from whoever, I would like you to do whoever. Nor did we see any requests. Nor did we see the outcome of what he did … and how he billed it.What was absolutely absent, we didn't see anything coming through into Mr Mulcaire that would say from whoever, I would like you to do whoever. Nor did we see any requests. Nor did we see the outcome of what he did … and how he billed it.
11.19am: Jay points out that the list contained people who would not have been of interest to royal correspondent Goodman, including paedophiles, reporters and others.11.19am: Jay points out that the list contained people who would not have been of interest to royal correspondent Goodman, including paedophiles, reporters and others.
Williams says he did not recognise many of the names.Williams says he did not recognise many of the names.
11.18am: Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted:11.18am: Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
Williams denies he knew in 06 that Mul was screwing Prezza's phone. [historical note: practitioners sd 'phone-screwing' not 'hacking']Williams denies he knew in 06 that Mul was screwing Prezza's phone. [historical note: practitioners sd 'phone-screwing' not 'hacking']
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) February 29, 2012— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) February 29, 2012
11.15am: Surtees instructed a list to be drawn up of those potentially compromised.11.15am: Surtees instructed a list to be drawn up of those potentially compromised.
Williams says the list took about a week to compile, and contained the key names that might be involved.Williams says the list took about a week to compile, and contained the key names that might be involved.
The list contained 418 or 419 names.The list contained 418 or 419 names.
He says the list was "definitive" – it gave an idea of "potential pool", the scale of the number of victims involved.He says the list was "definitive" – it gave an idea of "potential pool", the scale of the number of victims involved.
11.11am: Jay asks Williams about Mulcaire's police interview. He was asked about the hacking of John Prescott and Joan Hammell.11.11am: Jay asks Williams about Mulcaire's police interview. He was asked about the hacking of John Prescott and Joan Hammell.
Williams says he was aware that there may have been more targets of interception, but says the challenge was to prove that they were hacked.Williams says he was aware that there may have been more targets of interception, but says the challenge was to prove that they were hacked.
He adds that Mulcaire was getting information for the media world; it was not clear whether he was using illegal or legal techniques.He adds that Mulcaire was getting information for the media world; it was not clear whether he was using illegal or legal techniques.
My mindset was Glenn Mulcaire is getting information presumably for the media world and he may well be using a whole range of different techniques, some of those techniques may well be distasteful to the public but may be lawful. But others may be illegal.My mindset was Glenn Mulcaire is getting information presumably for the media world and he may well be using a whole range of different techniques, some of those techniques may well be distasteful to the public but may be lawful. But others may be illegal.
11.11am: Williams says he found out about the "for Neville" email at some time between the arrests in August and the trial in November.11.11am: Williams says he found out about the "for Neville" email at some time between the arrests in August and the trial in November.
11.10am: Surtees told Williams that News International had been obstructive when the police tried to arrest Goodman.11.10am: Surtees told Williams that News International had been obstructive when the police tried to arrest Goodman.
11.06am: Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested on 8 August 2006. Williams had been on leave and was briefed on arrests by Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Surtees.11.06am: Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested on 8 August 2006. Williams had been on leave and was briefed on arrests by Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Surtees.
The next day, the police discovered a plot to blow up nine airliners.The next day, the police discovered a plot to blow up nine airliners.
11.04am: Williams wrote a memo saying the number of victims wouldn't make much difference to the sentence, which would be relatively small. Even if he found 100 victims, there would be relatively little difference.11.04am: Williams wrote a memo saying the number of victims wouldn't make much difference to the sentence, which would be relatively small. Even if he found 100 victims, there would be relatively little difference.
11.02am: Tom Watson MP has responded to Rupert Murdoch's tweet:11.02am: Tom Watson MP has responded to Rupert Murdoch's tweet:
@rupertmurdochYou comment on her horse but not on her insider knowledge of a criminal investigation into your company. Have you no shame?@rupertmurdochYou comment on her horse but not on her insider knowledge of a criminal investigation into your company. Have you no shame?
— tom_watson (@tom_watson) February 29, 2012— tom_watson (@tom_watson) February 29, 2012
10.58am: At this time, Williams again raised issues of resources. He said it was important to "formally record" increased workload on SO13, with 72 on-oing operations.10.58am: At this time, Williams again raised issues of resources. He said it was important to "formally record" increased workload on SO13, with 72 on-oing operations.
Jay suggests he was putting down a "firm marker" to his superiors that resources were under pressure.Jay suggests he was putting down a "firm marker" to his superiors that resources were under pressure.
Williams describes it as a "moment of reflection". He said he was "happy with resources" but outlining "context".Williams describes it as a "moment of reflection". He said he was "happy with resources" but outlining "context".
"Our judgment at that time was a balance of risk and harm, we judged that very much on the potential of what that threat to life might be, judging it against different operations."Our judgment at that time was a balance of risk and harm, we judged that very much on the potential of what that threat to life might be, judging it against different operations.
"But at this stage, for what we were doing, I was satisfied we had enough resources.""But at this stage, for what we were doing, I was satisfied we had enough resources."
10.58am: The police investigation subsequently revealed two interceptions by Goodman, and two by Mulcaire, relating to royal household phones.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: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 criminalsPhilip 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— 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."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".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: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?Now they are blaming R Brooks from saving an old horse from the glue factory.What next?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) February 29, 2012— 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.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 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.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."10.51am: 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."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."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.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."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."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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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."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.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.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'.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.10.32am: 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: The private secretaries indicated that they were willing to co-operate with a prosection.
10.27am: Williams's log from 30 January 2006 said: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...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.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".
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.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."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.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.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.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.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.10.21am: 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.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.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.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.