1 Wednesday, 25 January 2012
2 (10.05 am)
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think you've been here under oath,
4 Mr Mahmood, so it remains extant.
5 MR MAZHER MAHMOOD (on former oath)
6 MR BARR: Good morning, sir. Before I commence my
7 questioning of Mr Mahmood, it perhaps would be sensible
8 if I adduce by summary the evidence of Mr Greenslade,
9 who has provided a witness statement and exhibits which
10 are relevant to Mr Mahmood's evidence.
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
12 MR BARR: The witness statement is dated 17 December of last
13 year, and it was provided to the Inquiry after
14 Mr Mahmood gave evidence last year.
15 Mr Greenslade tells us that in 1988 he was the
16 managing editor, news, of the Sunday Times, the person
17 in overall charge of the news gathering and news
18 production department. He tells us that in December
19 1988 the paper received a complaint from a police
20 officer about a story written by one of the reporting
21 staff, Mr Mahmood, which had been published in the
22 Sunday Times some months before. That story alleged
23 that a chief inspector had been demoted to constable
24 following a conviction for drink driving. The complaint
25 was that the chief inspector had in fact been demoted
1
1 only to the rank of inspector.
2 Mr Greenslade asked his news editor,
3 Michael Williams, to look into the complaint.
4 Mr Williams had told him that Mr Mahmood had informed
5 him that the error was due to a mistake by the news
6 agency that had filed the original story. That's to
7 say, the Devon News Agency. So Mr Greenslade asked
8 Mr Williams to get in touch with the agency in order to
9 ascertain how the mistake had been made.
10 Mr Williams reported back that the agency had
11 checked its transmission; it showed that its story had
12 correctly stated that the demotion was to inspector,
13 rather than constable. The agency sent a copy of its
14 original to Mr Williams.
15 Mr Williams then contacted the Sunday Times'
16 computer room to ask for a copy of the file sent by
17 Devon News. He noted that it says "constable" rather
18 than "inspector", in contrast to the file which had been
19 sent to him directly by the agency. During Mr Williams'
20 conversation with the computer room operative, he was
21 told that Mr Mahmood had recently visited the computer
22 room, which was off limits to editorial staff.
23 After checking once more with the Devon News,
24 Mr Williams and Mr Greenslade suspected that Mr Mahmood
25 may have tampered with the file. The matter was
2
1 reported to Mr Peter Roberts, the managing editor, and
2 he ordered the paper's systems editor, Mr Bryan Silcock,
3 to investigate further. He ran an audit check to trace
4 the origin of the file, and he wrote a report to
5 Mr Roberts dated 17 December 1988, a copy of that report
6 is attached.
7 The report relates how Mr Mahmood had entered the
8 computer room and, assisted by the systems operator, had
9 retrieved versions of the agency file. Mr Silcock
10 managed to find versions of the original report, that
11 showed they had correctly stated the demotion was to
12 inspector. The conclusion of Mr Silcock's report was
13 that he could not see any explanation for the
14 differences, except that the audit file was altered, and
15 there could be no doubt that the reports from the Devon
16 News Agency were correct.
17 On receiving Mr Silcock's report, Mr Greenslade
18 asked Mr Williams to question Mr Mahmood. He admitted
19 going to the computer room, but denied having tampered
20 with the file.
21 Mr Greenslade did not have the power to fire a staff
22 member, so he asked the editor, who was then
23 Mr Andrew Neil, to convene a meeting of senior
24 executives to discuss the case, and such a meeting was
25 convened. Mr Roberts and Mr Greenslade explained the
3
1 details of the case and were asked to make
2 recommendations. They recommended dismissal. That
3 recommendation was accepted and it was decided that
4 Mr Roberts would inform Mr Mahmood.
5 However, when they emerged from the meeting, they
6 found that Mr Mahmood had already resigned. There were
7 envelopes on Mr Greenslade's desk and Mr Williams'.
8 In that event, no further action was taken.
9 Mr Greenslade tells us that in his mind, Mr Mahmood had
10 resigned to avoid the embarrassment of being officially
11 dismissed.
12 The exhibits are not only the report but also
13 Mr Mahmood's letter of resignation.
14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Which says:
15 "Because of the nature of my work, I am only able to
16 operate with the absolute support and trust of my senior
17 colleagues and lawyers, but now that my honesty and
18 integrity as a journalist is in question, I feel that
19 there is no longer a place for me on the paper."
20 MR BARR: That's right.
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
22 MR BARR: Can I confirm that the cameras are off? Thank
23 you.
24 Questions by MR BARR
25 MR BARR: Mr Mahmood, you've provided the Inquiry with
4
1 a third witness statement. Are the contents of your
2 witness statement true and correct to the best of your
3 knowledge and belief?
4 A. Yes, they are.
5 Q. Dealing first with the circumstances in which you left
6 the Sunday Times in 1988, you deal with those from
7 paragraph 23 onwards in your most recent statement, and
8 you tell us that you've considered your letter of
9 resignation and the newspaper's internal report at the
10 time and you accept the contents of the report now, as
11 you did in 1988. You say that you did not challenge the
12 report at the time, but chose to leave before you were
13 disciplined because you would resign rather than be
14 dismissed.
15 You say you regret your actions in 1988 when you
16 were a very junior reporter, keen to impress. You say
17 you realise that you'd acted improperly and that this
18 would be unacceptable at the newspaper. Is that right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. At that time, you were 25 years old, weren't you?
21 A. 24, actually.
22 Q. 24 years old, and you'd been practising as a journalist
23 since your teens?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Tampering with the computer file in order to pass the
5
1 mistake from yourself to the Devon News Agency was
2 wrong, wasn't it?
3 A. Absolutely. Look, I was a young reporter and I'd had
4 a series of run-ins with Mr Greenslade while at the
5 paper, and, you know, I'd made a mistake, I acknowledge
6 that, and rather an incur the wrath of an executive
7 I didn't get on with, I foolishly thought the best way
8 would be to cover my mistake. It was the wrong thing to
9 do, and I resigned.
10 Having said that, it was a quarter of a decade
11 ago --
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It was actually 23 years ago, wasn't
13 it?
14 A. Well --
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But my concern is what you said to
16 me, which wasn't 23 years ago, or indeed much more than
17 23 days ago, and I think we could just look at that,
18 please.
19 MR BARR: Indeed we will, because -- and just before we do,
20 you say "mistake"; we are talking about an act of
21 dishonesty, aren't we?
22 A. Sure. Absolutely.
23 Q. When I asked you about it, the transcript starts on
24 page 3 and runs over to page 4.
25 A. Sorry, what tab is that?
6
1 Q. Tab 13, I'm told. Right at the back.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. If you look on page 4, line 11, my question which I was
4 putting was:
5 "Is it right that you left the Sunday Times under
6 something of a cloud the first time around?"
7 And you replied:
8 "We had a disagreement; correct."
9 A. Absolutely. I was acknowledging that I did leave under
10 a cloud and hinting at the disagreement -- you didn't
11 ask any supplementary questions and, you know, it wasn't
12 a highlight of my career, obviously, it's not something
13 that I elaborated on, you know.
14 Q. Can we explore, first of all, whether or not there was
15 in fact a disagreement, because your current witness
16 statement, your third witness statement, says that you
17 accept the contents of the report now, as you did in
18 1988.
19 A. Absolutely. What I was referring to by "disagreement"
20 was that I had a disagreement with Mr Greenslade, who
21 didn't like the way that I worked, you know, didn't
22 like -- I felt he didn't like me, and ever since has
23 displayed obsessive hostility towards me. There were
24 a number of run-ins I had with him. There were
25 disagreements over several stories.
7
1 Q. We'll come to that in a moment, but isn't the position
2 that your answer to me was disingenuous because the true
3 position was that you had left the Sunday Times because
4 you had committed an act of dishonesty --
5 A. Correct, absolutely --
6 Q. -- which you were ashamed of, ashamed of then and now?
7 A. I accept that very much so. I accept that. But the
8 background to it is that I had a history of
9 disagreements with one executive on the paper. As you
10 noted my resignation letter, I was referring to other
11 stories as well where I'd been questioned, you know, so
12 it was an ongoing thing. But that was the final straw.
13 And I acknowledge it was wrong, I was young, I was
14 naive, it was a foolish thing to do, I acknowledge that.
15 Q. You say you were young and naive. You'd been working as
16 a journalist for several years?
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. What you did was plainly wrong, wasn't it?
19 A. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that, absolutely, but
20 you know there was intense pressure at the time. It was
21 a tough time, my first with the Sunday Times.
22 Q. There has been some recent writing on this issue, and
23 there's an article which has been brought to the
24 Inquiry's attention in the British Journalism Review.
25 The article was published in December of last year by
8
1 Mr Michael Williams and has a slightly unseemly title of
2 "I've seen the future and it's crap."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If we turn to page 39 of that article --
5 A. What tab? Which tab is that?
6 Q. Tab 12, I'm told. It's right at the very back of my
7 bundle.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Mr Williams says towards the bottom of that page:
10 "At the very least there was a great deal of
11 reckless risk-taking -- not exactly discouraged by the
12 News International corporate ethos. I summarily
13 dismissed a reporter who was caught trying to cover his
14 mistakes by offering a financial bribe to the staff in
15 a newspaper computer room to falsify his copy (something
16 he has never subsequently denied). Shortly afterwards
17 he went seamlessly on to a senior job at our sister
18 paper, the News of the World, where his 'scoops' were
19 celebrated. This autumn he was rehired by the
20 Sunday Times as an 'undercover reporter'. All corporate
21 memory of scandal had been erased."
22 There's no doubt, is there, that Mr Williams is
23 referring in that article to you?
24 A. Absolutely, and it's a completely untrue allegation, and
25 can I also point out Mr Williams himself left the
9
1 Sunday Times under somewhat of a cloud. I don't know
2 the precise details, but his employment was terminated
3 in 1994 and I think the reasons are shrouded in secrecy
4 because of some deal he struck through his solicitor
5 Schillings.
6 But that allegation is completely untrue and even
7 Mr Greenslade, who is known to be very critical of my
8 work, yesterday in his blog said that was news to him.
9 He found it surprising. It's simply untrue.
10 Q. I want to be specific. We know from the documents that
11 Professor Greenslade has provided, and which you have
12 not disputed, that you resigned before being dismissed,
13 but the specific allegation there is there was an offer
14 of a financial bribe to staff in the computer room to
15 falsify copy. Is that true?
16 A. That's completely untrue. I did not bribe anybody.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just before we leave that page, do
18 you recognise how he describes working at the newspaper
19 further up the sheet:
20 "Take the story to breaking point and then ratchet
21 it back a notch. Unfortunately many journalists at
22 Wapping conveniently forgot about the last bit, as they
23 got carried away in the Wild West atmosphere."
24 A. No, I don't recognise that at all. I mean, the
25 Sunday Times is very, very strict, they're very
10
1 thorough, as they are now. It's just completely untrue.
2 Q. I want to now move to your relationship with
3 Professor Greenslade, as he now is, back in the 1980s
4 when you were working on the Sunday Times. You say that
5 there were several disagreements. The Inquiry has been
6 provided with information which suggests that
7 Professor Greenslade doesn't accept that. He can't
8 recall any disagreements.
9 A. Well, I say --
10 Q. Might you be mistaken in your recollection?
11 A. No, definitely not mistaken. This is a man who has
12 written articles saying "Why I'm out to nail
13 Mazher Mahmood". I think his agenda is very clear. He
14 didn't like me then, doesn't like me now.
15 Q. It's certainly right to say that Professor Greenslade
16 has published a number of articles critical of some of
17 your work. It's also right, though, that he has on
18 other occasions praised your work, isn't it?
19 A. Right. I don't know what the proportion is, but the
20 majority of his work is very critical.
21 Q. He praised your work in exposing the Pakistani cricket
22 match-fixing, didn't he?
23 A. Yes, he did. Hard not to, to be honest.
24 Q. And your expose involving the Duchess of York?
25 A. I don't know whether he praised that or not.
11
1 Q. Can we move now to the evidence which you gave about the
2 Turcu case? We learnt at the end of your oral evidence
3 that there had been an appeal against the judgment which
4 you had exhibited to your second witness statement, and
5 that the appeal had been compromised. There was no
6 mention of the appeal in your witness statement, was
7 there?
8 A. Well, if you look at my second witness statement, in
9 paragraph 22, I think it was, I think I hinted at it.
10 In fact, it's something that should be heard. I think
11 it's something that the Inquiry should hear about,
12 because it illustrates how ludicrous the conditional fee
13 arrangement is. It's ludicrous.
14 Alin Turcu is a man that we said was involved in the
15 Beckham kidnap plot. Transpired that in fact it's not
16 Alin Turcu at all. That was a name he'd stolen. His
17 real name is Bogdan Maris, a name that he'd taken from
18 somebody he'd met in prison while in Romania. So in
19 a sense we'd libelled an imposter.
20 He then takes us to court for libel on a conditional
21 fee basis. During the trial he was not in touch,
22 I understand, with his barrister, David Price, and we
23 win, Lord Justice Eady ruled that there definitely was
24 a plot, and we won. Despite the fact we won, it cost us
25 so much money, it was an absolutely fortune despite
12
1 having won. I think Mr Justice Eady said at the time
2 that the position of the News of the World was wholly
3 unenviable, which indeed it was.
4 Following that, one of the informants on that story
5 had turned against me and the paper and, encouraged by
6 Mr Greenslade -- Mr Greenslade introduced him to
7 David Price and he then made a statement and eventually
8 an appeal was launched.
9 I was told that purely on the grounds of cost -- you
10 know, it made economic sense not to pursue this, easier
11 to give Bogdan Maris or Turcu or whatever his name was,
12 better to pay him off than go back into court and incur
13 costs yet again.
14 Q. I want to explore some of that reply a step at a time.
15 Can we start first of all with paragraph 22 of your
16 second witness statement.
17 A. Where is that in the bundle?
18 Q. It should be in the original bundle.
19 A. And it's on the screen.
20 Q. Sure. You say:
21 "In a related libel trial [this is related to the
22 Victoria Beckham kidnap story] (brought by a member of
23 the gang who had been reported to have been involved in
24 the discussions -- the newspaper apologised to him)
25 Mr Justice Eady said ..."
13
1 I'm going to read on in a moment, but before I do
2 that, that's the apology you're referring to in your
3 third witness statement?
4 A. That's right, that we apologised to him, so obviously it
5 follows that we had settled with him in some way.
6 Q. Does it, Mr Mahmood? Because in the judgment at first
7 instance, although the judgment was for
8 News International, News International had not won every
9 factual dispute, had it? In particular, the judge had
10 not found that there was a gang, only a loose
11 association of criminals prepared to take whatever
12 opportunities presented themselves?
13 A. Right, but we won the libel action.
14 Q. And so what apology were you there referring to? Was it
15 a --
16 A. This was following the appeal that we thought we don't
17 want to go ahead with this appeal, we don't want to go
18 back to court and incur further costs, so the newspaper
19 apologised to Turcu or Bogdan Maris. I was only told
20 about it after it happened, actually.
21 Q. It's singularly unclear in your witness statement, isn't
22 it, that there was an appeal, that there was a great
23 deal of fresh evidence on the appeal and the appeal was
24 compromised?
25 A. Paragraph 22 was under the subheading "Fabrication" and
14
1 what I was referring to there was that allegations of
2 fabrication of stories was simply not true, and this
3 was -- this case was illustrating that, that
4 Mr Justice Eady had ruled that our evidence was valid,
5 having gone through every tape of every conversation.
6 So it was in that context I mentioned it.
7 But as I say, it's something that I should have
8 mentioned, because I feel it's something the Inquiry
9 should be aware of, that you can get petty criminals
10 like Bogdan Maris or Alin Turcu and they walk away with
11 money, despite being villains.
12 Q. Let's explore what the appeal involved. As you've
13 pointed out a moment ago, at the first trial the
14 claimant did not give evidence?
15 A. He was not in touch with his brief.
16 Q. It's right, isn't it, that part of the appeal involved
17 the service of a witness statement from Mr Turcu and
18 assertions by Mr Turcu that he was going to come and
19 attend any retrial of the matter?
20 A. Right. The first time I've seen these documents have
21 been recently. I was not privy to these. It was all
22 dealt with by our legal department. I was only told
23 about the apology afterwards and it was explained to me
24 that it wasn't viable on commercial grounds. Perhaps
25 these are questions best addressed to our legal team.
15
1 Q. Well, you've seen the documents now?
2 A. I have.
3 Q. So I think you can answer the questions on the basis of
4 what you've seen --
5 A. What tab are they?
6 Q. We can go through them if you wish, but I can put
7 them --
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. -- more quickly.
10 A. Sure.
11 Q. In addition to Mr Turcu's witness statement, there was
12 also a statement from Mr Gashi, wasn't there?
13 A. That's correct. As I said, Mr Greenslade had put
14 Mr Gashi in touch with David Price.
15 Q. And Mr Gashi's witness statement, the substance of it
16 was that the whole story had been a set-up?
17 A. That's right. Mr Gashi is -- made numerous allegations,
18 but clearly his statement doesn't tally with the
19 findings of Mr Justice Eady, and the background to Gashi
20 is that he was an informant of mine, provided
21 information, and was always vetted by myself and always
22 found to be accurate at the time.
23 I fell out with him after he was deported as an
24 illegal immigrant, and he turned against me because he
25 felt that I should in some way have assisted him in
16
1 gaining stay in this country. He said, "Look, I've
2 helped you, you have connections with the Home Office,
3 you should have helped me stay in this country."
4 So having landed back in Albania, he turned against
5 me and made phone calls to Mr Greenslade.
6 Mr Greenslade -- made a series of allegations.
7 Greenslade advised him to talk to police. He also put
8 him in touch with Mr Price. So that's the background to
9 Gashi.
10 Q. Mr Gashi also alleged, didn't he, that not only was the
11 story a set-up, but also it was a set-up at your
12 instigation?
13 A. It doesn't -- as I say, Mr Justice Eady went through all
14 the evidence, and I think it's very clear, his
15 conclusion is very clear. So Mr Gashi is lying.
16 Q. But the point is, Mr Mahmood, that Mr Justice Eady
17 didn't have Mr Gashi's evidence, did he? This was fresh
18 evidence that the appellant wished to use.
19 A. No, but Mr Justice Eady had access to every single tape.
20 Q. Mr Gashi went so far, didn't he, as to allege that there
21 was no plot?
22 A. As I say, Mr Gashi has -- since his deportation has made
23 a variety of bizarre and ludicrous allegations.
24 Q. In addition to the statement --
25 A. And that, I think that during the cricket trial he
17
1 approached them, spoke to police, police disregarded
2 him, said that he was unreliable, he was mentally
3 unstable, he's attempted suicide twice, so they didn't
4 regard him as a credible witness.
5 Q. Could you please listen to the question: in addition to
6 the statements of Mr Turcu and Mr Gashi, the appellant
7 also served for the purposes of the appeal three
8 statements about the gun which had featured in films
9 that had been taken covertly, including a statement from
10 Mr Turcu's old employer saying that one of its employees
11 had said the gun had been supplied by the employee to
12 Mr Gashi, but was not a real gun; it was a replica.
13 A. I've seen that, but what's the evidence that that was
14 the gun that was on the video?
15 Q. And there was a statement from the man who supplied the
16 gun to Mr Gashi confirming that and saying, having seen
17 the film, that he thought it was the same gun.
18 A. Mr Barr, these guys involved in the Beckham kidnap plot
19 were serious Eastern Bloc criminals, they were jailed
20 for other offences. These were serious villains. For
21 them to obtain a weapon was not a big deal. The
22 assertion that it had to be a gun supplied by Gashi,
23 that simply doesn't hold any water.
24 Q. You say it's an assertion that doesn't hold any water.
25 Do you have any personal knowledge of who supplied the
18
1 gun or not?
2 A. No, I do not, no.
3 Q. So you --
4 A. But we are aware that one of the members of the gang had
5 a weapon, we're certainly aware of that, and our
6 evidence showed that. Where it came from, I don't know.
7 Q. The third witness on that subject was the girlfriend of
8 the owner of the gun, who said that she had hidden the
9 gun.
10 A. Sorry, she was the girlfriend of who? Of Gashi,
11 I think.
12 Q. We can look that up.
13 A. No, it was Gashi's girlfriend.
14 Q. Gashi's girlfriend said -- Dominique Maurice(?), yes,
15 you're right, said that she had hidden the gun.
16 A. She would say whatever Gashi told her to say. As I say,
17 you're going off on a tangent here, the gun thing. We
18 saw a gun on the video, one of the gang had a gun. For
19 Gashi to claim that it was his gun, it was a replica,
20 you know, it's a matter for him.
21 Q. It's quite important, isn't it, because Mr Gashi is
22 saying it was all a set-up which he had instigated, and
23 he was the person who had provided the replica gun;
24 that's an important fact, isn't it?
25 A. Not at all. As I say, Mr Justice Eady went through
19
1 every single tape, scanned -- I mean, the police went
2 through all our tapes first of all, the CPS went through
3 all our tapes and all our evidence, the police were
4 satisfied with our evidence, the CPS was satisfied with
5 our evidence when they brought charges and
6 Mr Justice Eady was satisfied with the evidence. So,
7 you know, the only person now, after having turned
8 against me, Mr Gashi's making his allegations, he's the
9 only one that says that the evidence isn't up to
10 scratch. Everybody else seems to think it is.
11 Q. Wasn't the true position that in addition to whatever
12 concerns there might have been about legal costs, the
13 evidential landscape had changed dramatically by the
14 time that the appeal was compromised, and that there was
15 evidence from a number of witnesses which was adverse to
16 the News International case and which News International
17 was poorly placed to challenge?
18 A. I don't think that was the case and that's not how our
19 legal team presented it to me. Mr Gashi would be shown
20 to be discredited in seconds if he appeared in court.
21 I think in one court case -- he even turned up in
22 a court case to do with a story about red mercury where
23 he stood in the witness box and admitted that he'd lied,
24 made up a false allegation about me. When he was
25 challenged why he had lied, he said, "Look, I don't
20
1 know."
2 So on the basis of Gashi, it's a bit unfair to
3 criticise that story. In essence you're saying the
4 police got it wrong, CPS got it wrong, Mr Justice Eady
5 got it wrong but Gashi's right. That's essentially what
6 you're saying to me.
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not concerned about the story in
8 itself. That's part of, if you like, legal history.
9 I'm concerned with the custom, practice and ethics of
10 the press, and I'd like your help on this: Mr Gashi was
11 your informant. He provided you, as I understand what
12 you've said, with much useful information, which had led
13 to investigations which you'd conducted.
14 A. Correct.
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And you'd relied upon him for the
16 purpose of your work?
17 A. Well, relied on him in that he provided tips. We would
18 investigate each tip, independently gather evidence. We
19 get tips from all kinds of people.
20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, but in particular you'd relied
21 upon him for tips and for information over some time?
22 A. Correct.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
24 A. And each tip that he presented we vetted thoroughly.
25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just bear with me, please. I will
21
1 get there. However dishonest he might be, he was now
2 saying, in a statement which was going to be put before
3 the court, that you'd put him up to this particular
4 story. That's what he was saying.
5 A. Correct.
6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Are you telling me that nobody
7 discussed that with you or warned you about it or told
8 you about it at all? So that you had no knowledge of
9 this?
10 A. I can't recall that, but what I can recall is that he
11 was also encouraged by Mr Greenslade to speak to police
12 and I was called in and interviewed by police over
13 a whole range of allegations that he'd made, and each of
14 them were later proved to be false, so --
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But --
16 A. -- we knew that the man's a liar.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- you misunderstand my point,
18 Mr Mahmood. I am concerned to know whether your
19 newspaper, who clearly knew about all this, they were
20 seeing the papers, raised with you issues or put into
21 train measures arising out of the fact that this man who
22 provided you with tips was now alleging that you'd set
23 him up to it. There was no such discussion with you?
24 A. I can't recall. I can't recall a specific discussion.
25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because one might think that however
22
1 much one dismisses this man -- and I'm not here to
2 support Mr Gashi at all -- a newspaper would be
3 concerned to find itself in this position and would want
4 to put into place measures to protect itself, not least
5 because, quite right, you say Mr Justice Eady saw the
6 tapes, but he only saw the tapes that he got, and the
7 risk is that you are then put into a difficult position,
8 and I'm sure you can't have been pleased to be
9 interviewed by the police. That's itself a concerning
10 position. So I'm just interested to know what your view
11 is about the fact that nothing seems to have been
12 discussed with you, nothing seems to have been put into
13 place to ensure your position was protected.
14 A. I don't quite follow what you mean by nothing was put in
15 place. I mean, what do you mean should have been put in
16 place?
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm surprised that you weren't told
18 immediately about this statement, not merely so that you
19 could say it's rubbish, or whatever view you took about
20 it --
21 A. Sure.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- but also so that you could think
23 how you could protect yourself in the future if tipsters
24 were going to do this to you.
25 A. No, I'm sure it was mentioned. I cannot recall. It's
23
1 the nature of my work that we are dealing with these
2 kinds of criminals. You know, it's inevitable we have
3 to deal with these unreliable people.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I express some concern,
5 Mr Mahmood, that you can't recall what I would have
6 thought, speaking for myself, would be quite an
7 important discussion for your protection, which wasn't
8 that long ago in history.
9 A. I can certainly recall having a conversation with
10 Tom Crone about allegations he'd made to the police.
11 I can recall that.
12 MR BARR: Mr Gashi --
13 A. Mahmood.
14 Q. Terribly sorry. Mr Mahmood, perhaps I could help you
15 with that. Could you turn to tab 10 of the bundle.
16 A. Right.
17 Q. You should have there a statement of yours. Do you have
18 it?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. It was one of the exhibits to the statement that you
21 filed late on Monday of this week. A statement of
22 yours, it's made for the purposes of the appeal, you can
23 see that from the heading?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. And it says at paragraph 2:
24
1 "I have recently [it's dated 4 July 2006] read the
2 witness statement relied upon by the appellant given by
3 Florim Gashi dated 21 September 2005. The purpose of
4 this statement is to answer various allegations raised
5 by Mr Gashi in his statement. This is intended to be
6 a brief statement in response, and if this appeal
7 progresses any further, as the appellant wishes, then
8 I can produce a fuller statement in due course if
9 required."
10 Then your statement goes on to rebut the various
11 allegations in the main and to accept one or two of
12 them.
13 A. Well --
14 Q. Having drawn your attention to that document, it's
15 right, isn't it, that your earlier evidence that you
16 knew nothing about this appeal until after it had been
17 settled --
18 A. No, I didn't know that we'd --
19 Q. -- must have been wrong?
20 A. No, it's not wrong. I didn't know that we'd settled.
21 I had no idea that we'd settled. Thanks for alerting me
22 to this. It clearly was discussed with me because I've
23 written a statement of response to the allegations that
24 you made so I think that answers that question but I was
25 certainly not aware that we'd settled and I still don't
25
1 know what the amount of the settlement was or what the
2 terms of the settlement were.
3 Q. I would like to know how it is that you're telling us on
4 Wednesday morning that you didn't know about the appeal
5 until after it had settled when --
6 A. No, what I'm saying about the appeal --
7 Q. -- your exhibit on Monday makes clear that you did.
8 A. As I said to you, I was unaware of the terms of the
9 settlement or they'd reached a settlement. I was told
10 about that afterwards. Clearly I was aware of the fact
11 there was an appeal.
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You appreciate that I'm not concerned
13 with the facts of the case, that's merely the
14 background. I'm concerned about a slightly different
15 point, about discussions arising out of the fact that
16 one of your tipsters had said all this very damaging
17 material or statements about you.
18 Anyway, I've understood what you have said.
19 MR BARR: Can we go back to paragraph 22 of your original
20 witness statement, Mr Mahmood, your second statement.
21 This may need to be brought to the screen again. It's
22 the paragraph we looked at a moment ago. I've read the
23 introductory sentence already. The quotation of
24 Mr Justice Eady says:
25 "'Mr Mahmood may be hard bitten and cynical, but
26
1 I found no support for the proposition that he had made
2 the whole thing up.'
3 "He also said:
4 "'There was clearly a plan to kidnap
5 Victoria Beckham, however desultory some of the
6 discussions may have been' and 'It is clear that real
7 crimes were regularly discussed ... There is no
8 reliable way to determine that the Beckham discussions
9 are to be distinguished from the others as not real.'"
10 Then you go to to say:
11 "I think this answers the criticisms that I had in
12 some way concocted the story, that there was no truth in
13 it, or that I had exaggerated it ..."
14 So it's plain, isn't it, that one of the reasons why
15 you included that quotation in your witness statement
16 was because you wanted to draw attention to
17 Mr Justice Eady's finding that there was clearly a plan
18 to kidnap Victoria Beckham?
19 A. That's right. As I said, it was under the subheading
20 "Fabrication".
21 Q. As well as --
22 A. Absolutely, no, I agree.
23 Q. -- the additional allegation that you'd fabricated it?
24 A. Of course.
25 Q. If we look at paragraph 8 of your third statement --
27
1 A. Is that coming up?
2 Q. -- which says:
3 "I had also thought and still think that the fact of
4 the appeal and settlement did not change the effect of
5 the words in the judgment which I quoted in my second
6 statement. The words of Mr Justice Eady which I quoted
7 were about an additional point that had arisen in the
8 proceedings, which was an attack on my character,
9 suggesting that I knew that this story was false and
10 that I had picked on vulnerable asylum seekers."
11 The point is, Mr Mahmood, not only was the quote
12 relevant to the fabrication issue, the appeal was also
13 relevant to the question of whether or not there was
14 a plot at all, wasn't it?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. And so this is really no excuse at all, is it, for not
17 mentioning the appeal more fully in your second witness
18 statement?
19 A. As I say, it's an oversight and it's an issue that
20 I would want aired because it's an issue that I'm
21 concerned about, how people like this can go to court
22 and walk away with money purely on economic grounds.
23 It's an issue that I'm concerned about.
24 Q. Can we move now to what you tell us about the PCC. You
25 tell us that there was an investigation by the PCC into
28
1 the payments which had been made by the News of the
2 World to Mr Gashi.
3 A. Correct, there was.
4 Q. It's right, isn't it, that the PCC found in the News of
5 the World's favour?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And it did that because it interpreted the PCC code in
8 relation to payments to witnesses as only applying once
9 charges were laid?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And not in accordance with the wider meaning of legal
12 proceedings, which is applied in contempt of court
13 cases.
14 A. Right, okay.
15 Q. The third matter which I'd like to ask you about today,
16 Mr Mahmood, is your use of Florim Gashi after the
17 Beckham kidnap plot.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. It is right, isn't it, that you continued to use
20 Mr Gashi to provide you with tips for stories after the
21 Beckham plot?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Even though he was regarded by the police as an
24 unreliable witness?
25 A. Most of the people I deal with would be regarded as
29
1 unreliable witnesses. I've had front page splashes from
2 crack addicts. A story I did about a footballer's
3 father who was running a crack den in Nottingham, that
4 came from a crack addict who even stole my tape
5 recorder. We deal with unreliable people all the time
6 but it's information that's important, that we vet and
7 check thoroughly. So it can't be said that because
8 Gashi had been described as unreliable by police that we
9 thought he was unreliable.
10 Q. It does put at risk, though, doesn't it, the potential
11 integrity of your investigations if you're relying upon
12 a man whose credibility issues were as significant as
13 Mr Gashi's?
14 A. As I said, we get stories from crack addicts,
15 prostitutes, all kinds of sources. Our job is to test
16 the tip that they're providing, gather information, and
17 only if our lawyers are satisfied does it appear in the
18 paper.
19 Q. You tell us at paragraph 19 that Mr Gashi made
20 allegations about you in the red mercury trial and then
21 in the cricket match-fixing trial, a matter which you
22 touched upon a little earlier in your evidence. You
23 also say that in the red mercury trial, he admitted in
24 court that he had made false accusations about you and
25 withdrew them. Which allegations are you saying he
30
1 withdrew?
2 A. I can't recall that. I did ask our lawyers to try and
3 get a transcript of the case, but they've not been able
4 to do that in time, but I do recall being told by our
5 legal team that he'd stood up in court and admitted that
6 he'd lied and was not -- unable to explain why he'd
7 lied.
8 Q. You tell us that when you joined the Sunday Times last
9 year the editor asked you to confirm that you no longer
10 used Mr Gashi nor would you in the future use Mr Gashi
11 and you gave him that assurance?
12 A. Absolutely. This is a man who's made allegations
13 against me to the police, so it wouldn't even -- the
14 question doesn't even arise, really.
15 Q. Did --
16 A. We fell out after he was deported so I've not spoken to
17 him or dealt with him since. In fact, he was ringing me
18 up threatening me from Albania.
19 Q. Did the Sunday Times require any other conditions on the
20 way in which you conducted your investigations when they
21 employed you last year?
22 A. No, they did not.
23 MR BARR: Thank you. Those were all my questions.
24 A. Thank you.
25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is there a risk that if you use an
31
1 informant who you know to be unreliable as the basis to
2 start investigation, that you're then really embarking
3 upon what is little more than a fishing expedition?
4 A. No, it's not true at all. I mean, with Gashi, I mean at
5 the time all the information that he'd provided me was
6 accurate. I didn't regard him as an unreliable witness,
7 even after the Beckham case. I believed and still do
8 that the information he provided at the time was
9 correct. But the nature the work is, as I explained,
10 that you have to deal with people who are simply
11 unreliable, untrustworthy. You have to.
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand the point. And I also
13 understand your point about conditional fee agreements,
14 but its place in this discussion we will have to think
15 about.
16 All right, thank you very much. I will rise.