1 March 2012

Leveson Inquiry: Module 2 - Press/Police - Day 4

Lord Justice Leveson
 "The focus of the Inquiry is ‘the culture, practices and ethics of the press’ in the context of the latter’s relationship with the public, the police and politicians. All of these matters overlap, and my goal must be to consider what lessons, if any, may be learned from past events and what recommendations, if any, should be made for the future, in particular as regards press regulation, governance and other systems of oversight."

Module 2

"The relationship between the press and the police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest."

Useful Links:
Leveson Inquiry Witness Statements HERE 
Leveson Inquiry Witness Lists HERE 
Video Recordings of each day's proceedings HERE
Live Feed From Leveson Inquiry Site HERE
BBC Democracy Live Feed HERE 
Telegraph Live Blog HERE
Guardian Live Blog HERE
Links to today's articles, blogs, comment and information relevant to the Leveson Inquiry:
 The inquiry has started with a rebuke by Lord Justice Leveson for core participants who allegedly have leaked witness statements before they are formally read into the inquiry.

#Leveson RT @skymartinbrunt: Virginia Wheeler, 32, Sun's Defence editor, held on corruption allegation in Scot Yard bribes probe 

        Thursday, March 1st 2012 
      Link to yesterday's Hearing HERE

      Today's Witnesses:
      Peter Clarke (former MPS)
      Andy Hayman (former MPS)
      John Yates (former MPS)
      John Yates, Peter Clarke, Andy Hayman

      Peter Clarke

            Telegraph Live Blog HERE
            Guardian Live Blog HERE

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Clarke joined the Met in 1977 and retired in 2008 when he was assistant commissioner, specialist operations.
            When he was commander of royalty and diplomatic protection he had very little contact with the press, he explains. When he went to the anti-terrorist branch, there was a very clear operational requirement to have more contact with the media. 
            Clarke says he had off-the-record briefings and lunches with the Crime Reporters' Association when he was head of the anti-terrorism unit. He says there was clear scepticism about terrorism in the late 1990s and it was felt it was important to have more informal contact with the media.
            Ben Fenton:
            Clarke had mtg with NI in autumn 2004.Rupert Murdoch unexpectedly joined the mtg.[I think this was the subject of a recent leak]

            Ross Hawkins:
            Clarke at : reason I had engagement with media was to help protect the public; not interested in trying to make police look good

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Clarke says he could give off-the-record briefings to "responsible journalists" about alleged terrorists who were facing legal action. He was "safe in the knowledge" that the journalists would not report what he was telling them because it was part of the case that was coming to court and would have been sub judice.

            Hacked Off:
            Jay refers to Clarke's hospitality register showing a 2005 rugby league game and 2006 football match. CRA lunches not on register.

            Clarke says in 30 years of policing the extent of police leaks to the media has probably been exaggerated

            Telegraph Live Blog:
            10.27 Mr Jay QC asks about leaks of "highly sensitive operational intelligence." They are done by "misguided" individuals. "I do not know what motivates them," he says. He suspects it may be for "short term presentational advantage".
            Leaks are rare. Mr Paddick gave evidence earlier in the week about a major raid on a house on 29 July 2005, which he implied reached the media because of a leak. Mr Clarke says the raid was based on overnight intelligence. The media were turning up very quickly to such raids - but because local roads were closed and people evacuated from their homes, he suggests.
            Guardian Live Blog:
            Clarke says there is a need for guidelines for contact with the press but stresses they "do need to be flexible and do need to take account of the particular circumstances".He says it would be unhelpful to have rigid guidelines that would force the higher ranks of the force to comply with the same rules as junior officers.
            Telegraph Live Blog:
            10.34 Clarke is asked about Operation Caryatid - the first probe into phone hacking.
            Above Clarke on the investigation was Asst. Commissioner Andy Hayman. Clarke told him in around May 2006 that Mulcaire and Goodman were "coming into view" - until then it was not clear who was behind the voicemail interception.
            But Clarke did not see the senior investigating officers' decision logs for the case until 2011. That is normal practice, he says.

            Ross Hawkins:
            Clarke wake of 7/7 borrowed over 1000 officers, airline plot involved some 300 officers

             Andy Davies:
             As at HASC last yr, Clarke outlines how terror threat in 2006 was stretching police resources.

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Clarke says it is highly likely that others were involved in phone hacking:
            It's the cynical view of an old police officer that if someone is arrested for burglary it's only a slim chance it's their first time as a burglar.

            P Clarke "no cooperation whatsoever from News International"
             Steve Hewlett

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Clarke says the parameters were set at the beginning of the phone–hacking investigation - which involved the expectation of arrests, but also deterrents to prevent it happening in the future. This involved working with the mobile phone companies.

            Telegraph Live Blog:
            10.53 What was Clarke's view of News International's efforts to obstruct the probe by not handing over evidence?

            "It became immediately apparent we weren't going to get any co-operation whatsoever."

            It was unusual. Most large companies "bend over backwards" to protect their reputations by helping the police. But "this was a closing of the ranks very early on."

            Normally that attitude would make a police team "more dogged". But again, Clarke cites his other work.
            The MPS legal services and the CPS considered getting a magistrates's warrant to obtain evidence.
            Clarke decided not to analyse the 11,000 pages of Mulcaire's notes in September 2006. There is no document of that decision.

             Hacked Off:
            Clarke: In Sep 2006 I was briefed. Not anywhere near top of concerns at the time. We decided not to proceed with investigation.

            Clarke: Every phone number would have had to be researched and subject to individual RIPA applications.

            Clarke: It was disproportionate in terms of other competing demands at the time.

            Ben Fenton:
            Clarke says he was aware of the corner names.[3 journalists other than Goodman commissioning Mulcaire to hack phones]

            Tom Symonds:
            DAC Peter Clarke - "I haven't seen anything that would cause me to make a different decision" re expanding phone-hacking inquiry

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Lord Justice Leveson says his first area of interest is "the systemic issue": whether Clarke was told that there was enough evidence to take wider action. Leveson says that is "What the police are facing as you well know, is that this was a decision to cover it all up."
            His second concern is what was done with the victims of phone hacking and informing them.
            Leveson stresses that there were several references to the then deputy prime minister, John Prescott, and his assistant in Mulcaire's notes. However, Clarke says this is not something the police were aware of at the time.
            Clarke repeats his earlier assertions that it was difficult to turn information into evidence that could lead to further arrests.
            "Trying to prove a conspiracy within a major newspaper, it wouldn't get you to the position, or was unlikely to get you to the position, of a successful prosecution," he adds.

            Ross Hawkins:
            Clarke : wouldn't have investigated even if he'd known witness protection scheme was compromised

            Ross Hawkins:
            Jay suggests had Prescott been informed might not have been possible to put the lid on this, would have been "explosion"

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Leveson puts it to Clarke that he could say the force just didn't consider it important enough to investigate phone hacking.
            Clarke says Leveson has got it nearly "spot on".
            The minutiae of whether there was circumstantial evidence against journalist A, B, C, is a minor consideration in comparison to … a threat to the life a member of the British public.
            Invasions of privacy are odious …. but to put to bluntly they don't kill you, terrorists do.
            Hacked Off:
            Clarke: It wouldn't be for me to go direct to Lord Prescott.Might have been forced to carry out an investigation I didn't want to

            Hacked Off:
            Clarke: Briefing paper went from the Met to the Home Office. Dr Reid (then Home Sec) was aware.

            Ross Hawkins:
            Important suggestion that then home sec John Reid received briefing on phone hacking

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Clarke says he briefed Hayman in the runup the arrest of Goodman and Mulcaire, but he doesn't remember specifics.
            He does not remember briefing Hayman on the decision not to broaden the investigation into phone hacking. He does not remember anything Hayman might or might not have said about this decision.
            He says it was "absolutely" his understanding that Prescott ought to have been notified by the police.
            Prescott was not, however, informed.
            Clarke says he doesn't think the police made a mistake on extending the phone hacking inquiry, but admits its strategy for informing victims was not so successful."To this day I don't reallly understand why it [the strategy] didn't work," he says.
            Clarke reveals that David Blunkett, the then home secretary, was personally informed by the then commissioner.
            To this day, he does not know why Prescott wasn't informed.
            Jay has now finished questioning Clarke.Leveson says there is no doubt that "there is rather an unfortunate catalogue of events" in relation to the phone-hacking inquiry in 2006, the result of which is now "potentially extremely damaging" and therefore needs to be explained.
            He says he recognises that he views material from a policeman's eyes, but he would like to know if there is anything Clarke would like to add by way of comment on his role in this operation, or in relation to what he knows what happened subsequently.
            Jay asks Clarke if he had any contact with Yates in 2009 in relation to phone hacking. No, says Clarke, but he did have discussions with him in July 2011 before their select committe appearances.

            John Yates - Interview Via Satellite Link From Bahrain

            Telegraph Live Blog HERE
            Guardian Live Blog HERE

            Telegraph Live Blog:
            12.05 Former Asst Commissioner John Yates is being interviewed by video link. He works for the police force of Bahrain.
            He conducted a review in July 2009 of the Operation Caryatid phone hacking investigation.
            Yates describes being the “public face for policing an policy matters” in his written statement 
            Guardian Live Blog:
            Yates says he had a "healthy and transparent" relationship with the media that may have included informal lunches.The vast majority of his dealings wth the media would have been to do with the strategic policies he was exposed to, whether it be data retention, rape policy and so on.
            I think there's great value in that, in testing policy, testing views and getting views back. The last thing we would want is policy in a bubble or in a vacuum where policing isn't connected to other thinking.

            Hacked Off:
            Yates: I'm firmly of the view that I was briefed against on an industrial scale during the cash for peerages investigation.
            Yates: Casual meetings with journalists involving drinks and coffee not included on hospitality register as reciprocal.
             Yates: There was a senior management meeting and then deputy commissioner advised me, and others, to reduce contact with media.

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Yates says he was "briefed against on an industrial scale" when he led the police's "cash for honours" investigation in 2006/07 and that this did not help when he was involved in anti-terrorism.It put me in the public eye – that was unhelpful … allegations made against me … I was in the counter-terrorist [unit], that [media comment] was not necesarily a good thing," he says.
            The inquiry is now looking at the police hospitality register. It would not include any occasion when drinks or coffee were bought.Yates says if it's reciprocal it doens't count. "If you are bought a drink and buy one back I don't consider that hospitality," he says.
            He says he would have used his "personal money" and wouldn't have claimed for these drinks.
            Yates adds that he would have had a drink in "sensible quantities" on occasions in evening meetings with journalists.

            Ross Hawkins:
            June 2009 John Yates had meal with Neil Wallis - Notw exec - was private meeting with friends he says
            Yates says they were likely to have discussed boring things like football, not policing.
            Nick Wallis certainly was a good friend says Yates at #leveson, though hasn't seen him for nigh on a year
            Hacked Off:
            Yates: Went to two or three football matches with Wallis. I've always been completely open that he's a good friend.

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Jay is now looking at a compilation of his diary entries involving contact with the media. He asks Yates about an entry for 28 April 2009 when a dinner was organised with an "SPS", (Met press chief) Dick Fedorcio and "NW" (likely to be News of the World executive Neil Wallis).That was at a restaurant called Luciano's. Yates didn't attend the dinner in the end and doesn't know what the purpose of the meeting was, he says.
            He went to Scalinis with Neil Wallis, executive editor of NOTW; Nick Candy, the property developer; and Neil Reading, a leading PR man. "It was a private appointment, with friends. It was nothing to do with policing at all." Candy paid. Yates says he did not discuss policing and Wallis did not discuss the press. They discussed "boring stuff like football".
            Article from Telegraph about Nick Candy, Yates' 'friend'
            Article From Wall Street Journal on Neil Wallis
            He and Wallis went to the football two or three times together. Wallis supported Manchester. Yates supported Liverpool. One match was Liverpool v Arsenal. Wallis paid for tickets; Yates paid for travel. "It was pro-rata really."
            He adds: "He certainly was a good friend" but they haev not met for a year.
            Business chat on the train was always "On the margins". They liked to talk about "family life" and "life outside the Met."

            Hacked Off:
            Entry shows Wallis attending meeting at Scotland Yard in Sep 09. Yates: Could be meeting about his company Shami.
            Yates: If someone in organisation arrested that doesn't mean you cut off relationships with very influential section of the media.

            Hacked Off:
            Jay: Diary shows meetings with Witherow (ST) and Hanning (IoS). Yates: JH did see a grander conspiracy, I gave him context.

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Jay asks about meetings with Sunday Times editor John Witherow. These meetings, he points out, were entered into the register. All the meetings were "à deux" – that is, there were no others present.Yates also had meetings with James Hanning, deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday. Hanning has covered phone hacking and gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry about his meetings with the late Sean Hoare, the former News of the World journalist who blew the whistle on phone hacking.
            Yates describes Hanning as "a very interesting interrogator".
            Yates is asked whether Hanning shared with him his belief that knowledge of phone hacking went up the chain at News International.
            "If the point you are getting to – did he give me any suggestion of evidence that enabled me to do anything with it – the answer is none," says Yates.
            Jay puts it to Yates that Hanning also challenged him on his meetings with Wallis.
            Yates says Hanning talked to him about the relationship with far more important people in the Murdoch stable than Wallis, who then didn't work for the force.
            Jay returns to the subject of Lucy Panton, the crime editor of the News of the World, and is inquiring about an email from NoW news editor James Mellor to her.
            The email says:
            Think John Yates could be crucial here, have you spoken to him, really need an exclusive splash line, time to call in all those bottles of champagne.
            Yates says it related to the weekend of 29/30 October 2010 when there had been a printer cartridge bomb found on a DHL flight.
            He says there was no favour being called in and the "champagne" reference is simply a turn of phrase.
            Yates may once have shared a bottle of champagne with Panton, but it would have been with other people too, he explains.
            Jay is now discussing Yates's alleged involvement in securing a job at the Met for Neil Wallis's daughter Amy. Yates passed on an email regarding this to the Met's HR department and Jay says this email identifies the fact that he knows the father.
            The former policeman says there was nothing untoward about her appointment.
            1.08pm: Jay returns to the subject of Lucy Panton, the crime editor of the News of the World, and is inquiring about an email from NoW news editor James Mellor to her.
            Yates is now being asked about the phone hacking inquiry in 2006.
            He says it was clear from the solicitors' letters that were traded in August 2006 that there was "deliberate obfuscation around all these matters" by News International.
            Yates was not part of the investigative team at the time.
            He is asked whether he was briefed by the investigation team at the time.
            Yates says he recalls the phrase "a Mexican stand-off" at News International's Wapping HQ when the police turned up with a warrant but he says that probably would have happened at any newspaper; it would not be unusual for lawyers to try to test a warrant.

            #Leveson RT @skymartinbrunt: Virginia Wheeler, 32, Sun's Defence editor, held on corruption allegation in Scot Yard bribes probe

            Ross Hawkins:

            Yates accepts he made a "fundamental misjudgement" in how he defined phone hacking victims

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Jay asks about how the police responded to the Guardian article of 9 July 2009 showing that the publisher of the News of the World had paid out more than £1m to settle phone-hacking cases.
            Yates said he started considering the article about 7am.
            Later that day, at about 11am, he was asked by Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson to establish the facts of the matter.
            There was a formal meeting at 11am but there had been several meetings before this with Keith Surtees and others who had worked on the initial inquiry.
            This is Yates's statement from 9 July 2009:
            Where there was clear evidence that people had been the subject of tapping, they were all contacted by the police.
            This case has been the subject of the most careful investigation by very experienced detectives … no additional evidence has come to light since this case has concluded.
            I therefore consider that no further investigation is required.
             Yates says Jay is inferring more significance to the day's events than warranted.
            "It was an article in a newspaper, it wasn't a formal review," he says.
            Telegraph Live Blog:

            13.28 Yates is asked about the meeting where they reviewed hacking following an article in the Guardian alleging widespread hacking. The big meeting started at 11am. But Yates says he received "informal" briefings from several people before that time. Jay is trying to establish exactly how much time was spent on the meeting.
            Yates says such reviews of cold cases happened quite often and in an informal manner. He is suggesting it has been granted greater significance than it deserves. "It was an article in a newspaper. It wasn't a formal review."
            Guardian live Blog:
            Jay asks why didn't it cross Yates's mind that his friendship with Wallis might give rise to the perception that he would not be impartial in his dealings with the News of the World. Didn't any "alarm bells" ring?
            Yates says:
            I was looking at this dispassionately from the evidential perspective. I have a reputation for doing difficult things.
            Guardian Live Blog:
            Leveson says Yates is entitled to be friends with whoever he wishes, but there may have been a perception that he was an interested party because Wallis was a close friend.
            He suggests that Yates should have left it to another assistant commissioner to make the statement about the Guardian article.
            Yates replies: "I take you point about the perception, but it didn't appear to be a problem then and it didn't appear to be a problem for others."
            Yates says he did not get evidence until the end of the 2010 that Lord Prescott's phone was hacked.
            I cannot tell you the amount of times that he sought information … It would be scores of times that, the level of concern, is commensurate about the number of times I sought clarity about it … right up to the end of 2010 that a piece of paper that showed … that was the first time.
            Telegraph Live Blog:
            13.52 Yates made "scores" of inquiries into allegations about John Prescott's phone being hacked. It was raised at the 2009 review.
            This causes Leveson "real surprise." We now know his phone was hacked. "I am disturbed that your persistant requests did not yield the answer."
            There was an "indexing issue" Yates says.
            Leveson is baffled. Operation Caryatid, in 2006, knew about the allegation on day one. "You ought to know that the investigating detective who interviewed Glenn Mulcaire within a day of his arrest made the link and asked Glenn Mulcaire about that person."
            Yates says he checked that with Phil Williams, who led the probe. Williams did not know that. "I'm only as good as my briefing."
            He adds: "It is deeply regretable and I count account for it I'm afraid." He did not want to mislead the Deputy PM. He was "desperate" to get to the bottom of it.

            Alan Rusbridger:
            [The point abt piece in July 09 was that it *wasn't* new evidence. Cops had it]

            John Prescott has just tweeted:
            Guardian Live Blog:
            Yates says he was "surprised" by evidence given by officers at the inquiry yesterday that there was circumstantial evidence pointing the finger at other News of the World journalist.
            "I'm surprised it was phrased that way because it's never been phrased that way to me," he says.
            Yates says he does not think he was given any indication that there was, as Jay put it, "circumstantial inferential evidence implicating a number of other journalists".

            David Allen Green:
            Yates, of course, used libel lawyers to try and prevent criticism by my friend lawyer Mark Lewis.

             Guardian Live Blog:
             Yates says it was pointless pursuing Mulcaire again as he has already served time for phone hacking.
            I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that more evidence against Mulcaire would actually take us nowhere at all. He was never going to stand trial again for phone hacking. He had been dealt with, sentenced and that process had been complete.
            New York Times article mentioned during Yates' interview

             Hacked Off:
            Yates statement: I believe I was a victim of phone hacking as I stated to HASC.

            Guardian Live Blog:
            The inquiry hears that Andy Coulson, who had resigned as News of the World editor in January 2007 and was working as an adviser to the Conservative party, was told about the hacking in July 2009 "as a victim".An internal police memo noted:
            DCS [Phil] Williams update from 10 July 2009 PW informed Andy Coulson on these issues. He took it well..
            Yates says "the focus of the article was very much inferenced around him so as he was a victim and we knew he was a victim".
            Jay corrects this: "The article was suggesting that he might be one of the conspirators, not that he was a victim."

            did I hear right? MPS spoke to Coulsen as a phack victim in July 09 whilst telling the world there was no new evidence? Er.....
            Steve Hewlett

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Yates says he was himself a victim of phone hacking.
            Jay asks what evidence he has.
            Yates says he was abroad at particularly difficult meetings at the Met and every time messages were left on the phone he couldn't access it and had to reset his pin number.
            "Knowing the modus operandi, I was 99.9% that my phone was being hacked," says Yates.
            Jay puts it to Yates that "you are now applying different evidential standards to yourself".
             Yates denies that he was unduly influenced by his friendship with Wallis or his contacts with News International.
            I absolutely know and I guarantee that none of that played any part in my decision making. My conscience is completely clear on that.
            Jay says Met press chief Dick Fedorcio has submitted a statement saying that he was aware Yates and Wallis knew each other through work, but didn't know they had significant contact outside work. Asked if Fedorcio knew about the dinners with Wallis, Yates says: "I imagine so," adding the dinners were not secret as he recorded them in his work diary even though they were private arrangements.
            John Prescott has just tweeted:
             The BBC's Ross Hawkins has just tweeted:
            Leveson asks if the police could not have taken a different approach and conducted a scoping exercise to review what might be needed to investigate the circumstantial evidence they had.
            Yates says at the time there was no justification to put 40 police officers on the phone-hacking investigation for a year.
            He said there was "no evidence to support it as a resource decision, the public sector cuts were kicking in" and "two people had gone to prison".
            "It wouldn't have occured to me, I deeply regret it now, in terms of what happened," he adds.
            Andy Hayman

            Telegraph Live Blog HERE
            Guardian Live Blog HERE

            Guardian Live Blog:
            Hayman was in charge of Operation Caryatid, the Met's 2006 phone-hacking investigation, but was not involved on a day-to-day basis.
            He concluded there was "benefit on both sides" for a relationship between the press and the police but the ground rules had to be established.
            I saw that at worst the media's objective [could be] to get exclusive across a line at the other side at the worst, [on] the police side might cosy up and start leaking information to the media.
            #Leveson back. Andy Hayman in the chair now. Not directly involved with Op Caryatid but as the ex top cop says, the buck stopped with me.

            Hacked Off:
            Jay: You told Select Committee your career choice always between police and journalism. Hayman: Side issue to terrorist threat.
            Hayman: There are different styles and approaches in the media. I realise that there may be other agendas people might exploit.
            Hayman: Spoke at Society of Editor conference. The social scene of interacting was businesslike and to develop relationships.
            Ross Hawkins:
            Jay quotes from L Blair book accusing Hayman of briefing media in "careless and disloyal manner" #leveson; Hayman disagrees
            Hacked Off:
            Jay: Dinner Nov 05 with Lucy Panton in register,what was discussed? Hayman: Given timing, NoW keen to run anti-terrorism campaigns.
            Hacked Off:
            Jay: NoW meeting 3 days later not in register. Hayman: Can only guess it was something to do with the same campaign.
            Guardian Live Blog:
            Hayman is being asked as implied criticism that he spent too much time with the media.An internal memo suggests that "Perhaps Andy got carried away with the power and the prestige" of his job and may have "developed a lifestyle of later evenings" involving socialising with the press.
            Hacked Off:
            Jay: April 06 with ed (Coulson) and deputy ed (Wallis) of NoW. Hayman: Arranged by Dick F, I think it was just to meet them.

            Jay listing a number of meetings with Neil Wallis, Lucy Panton, and means of payment

            Hacked Off:
            Jay: Another lunch for nine people - £566 bill £181.50 on alcohol - paid for on Amex. Hayman:Away day for force, gesture of thanks.
             Jay: CRA event the same day. You spent £47 on bottle of champagne. Might have been for Panton? Hayman: I can't remember.
            Guardian Live Blog:
            Jay says Hayman's expenses claims were investigated. He cites an expense claim in February 2007 – "Shepherd's restaurant, lunch for nine". It was paid for by American Express and cost £566, of which £188.50 was spent on alcohol.
            Hayman says he took his top team out; the people who would normally have gone on awaydays.
            They had sacrificed holidays since 2005 and "really worked their socks off"; he paid for the meal as a Met gesture to their families and to mark a colleague's promotion.
            Telegraph Live Blog:
            15.56 On retirement from the Met, Hayman was offered TV appearances and columns. He went to an agent for support. News International "got wind" of it, and also put a bid in. He considered the propriety of it, and reflected on how retired sportsmen and politicians take columns. He never considered the fact that NOTW is part of the Times stable, and at no point did the editors or reporters seek to take advantage of his connections. It felt very separate to the red-top world.
            But he adds: "If I had my time again, and I make that link, presentationally that is difficult."
            "It's a perception thing, isn't it," says Leveson.
            Guardian Live Blog:
             Hayman is asked how regular his contact was with his deputy Peter Clarke, the head of the anti-terrorism unit during the 2006 Operation Caryatid investigation into phone hacking.
            He says he the number of times he talked to Clarke about Caryatid was "on one hand".
            He says micro-management of day-to-day detail would have been counterproductive and he needed to let people get on with their jobs.
            Hayman allocated the phone-hacking investigation to Clarke.
            He said he would only be briefed in exceptional circumstances. He says by way of example that it was "significant" that he didn't know when the arrests were going to be made, or search warrants were issued.  
            Telegraph Live Blog:
            16.02 Hayman is asked about Operation Caryatid.
            He says his role was not to get into "too much detail" into investigations. His job was to create an "umbrella" and "empower people", backing them with resources and protecting from outside interference.
            Like the other officers, his focus was on terrorism at that time, not hacking.
            Guardian Live Blog:
            In a column in the Times in July 2009 (paywall), Hayman wrote:
            The Guardian has said it understands that the police file shows that between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals had their mobile phones hacked into, far more than was ever officially admitted during the investigation and prosecution of Clive Goodman. Yet, my recollection is different. As I recall the list of those targeted, which was put together from records kept by Glen Mulcaire, ran to several hundred names. Of these, there was a small number — perhaps a handful — where there was evidence that the phones had actually been tampered with.
            Had there been evidence of tampering in the other cases, that would have been investigated as would the slightest hint that others were involved.
            Hayman says he had a cursory sight of the list. At the time there were actually 419 names on the list, says Jay.
            Yates says that there were only "a handful" of numbers tampered with is his recollection.
            Hayman is now being shown a matrix of names by the inquiry. He says he does not recall a matrix, but a list.He says he remembers that he was shown the list by John McDowall, who was standing in as Peter Clarke's deputy.
            The conversation "lasted less than, I don't know, four or five minutes". He had popped into Hayman's office and said something along the lines: "Just so you're aware, the investigation team appear to be creating a list and here's a list of names, we don't know what the status is, haven't got a clue where this is going, but we just want you to know there's a list emerging".
            Yates says he didn't think any more of it.
            Leveson says the meeting must have made an "impact" as Hayman was able to recall it three years later for his Times column.