The Crown Prosecution Service says eight people will be charged on 19 counts of  conspiring to intercept communications intended for 600 recipients. They are Brooks (ex News International CEO), Coulson (ex editor), Stuart Kuttner (ex managing editor), Glenn Mulcaire (private investigator), Greg Miskiw (ex news editor), Ian Edmondson (ex assistant editor), Neville Thurlbeck (chief reporter) and James Weatherup (assistant news editor).

All are former editorial staff, so the Murdochs, Les Hinton and Tom Crone are off the hook in this phase.

What was ‘phone hacking’?

And how does someone commit it? Legally, that could depend on a couple of interesting arguments, including whether the law is trumped by mobile networks’ own embarrassing part in the controversy…

The relevant law here is the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which provoked digital libertarians’ outrage when it was introduced in 2000 for allowing spying on citizens’ communications by police and intelligence agencies but not by others, like journalists.

RIPA outlaws “interception” of telecommunications systems. To be convicted of this “interception”, people facing charges would have to either had “monitored” their targets’ voicemails or modified their voicemail systems.

A decade ago, mobile networks left the voicemail door open when they issued only default access PINs to customers. For example, anyone could telephone a Vodafone customer and, upon a non-answer, could enter Vodafone’s default, network-wide PIN to gain access to the recipient’s mailbox. This is what journalists are accused of.

The networks had left the back door ajar – and no authority, whether regulatory nor any mobile industry body, ever told the networks to close it, though individual carriers have now stopped issuing default PINs.

Where does this security oversight leave a prosecution? If anyone entered the open door in the early 2000s, would that still break RIPA’s law on “interception”? A prosecutor may argue listening to voicemails whilst logged in to the mailbox could indeed constitute “monitoring”, that deleting any voicemails whilst there could indeed constitute “modification”.

On the other hand, to satisfy a rigid definition of “interception”, would eavesdroppers have had to listen to voicemails before their intended recipients ever did? If so, we could see some prosecutions succeed and others fail, depending on who dialled in first.

The wider impact

Although business executives besides Brooks are not being charged with actual phone hacking, News Corp, of course, is not exempt from collateral damage from the former journalists’ upcoming trials.

Having already shut News Of The World, the company is now splitting its news publishing and broadcast/movie assets. If completed before trials begin, the split could shield Fox from any further death spiral in which News Corp finds its papers.

Brooks was already amongst those facing a charge for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, relating to an alleged cover-up of the “hacking” itself.

The report stopped short of accusing Rupert or James Murdoch of mis-leading the committee but accused the father of “turning a blind eye” to News Of The World’s phone hacking and the son of “astonishing” lack of curiosity in investigating it.

Here are the key players and what the report concluded about each:

Les Hinton

Ex-News International executive chairman. Ex-Dow Jones CEO (resigned, July 2011). Friend of Rupert Murdoch for 50+ years.

• “Les Hinton misled the Committee in 2009 regarding the extent of the pay-off to Clive Goodman and his own role in making it happen.”
• “Les Hinton was complicit in the cover-up at News International, which included making misleading statements and giving a misleading picture to this Committee.”
• “Les Hinton’s unwillingness to be explicit over the payment of legal fees was a deliberate effort to mislead the Committee over News International’s payments to Clive Goodman after he was charged and convicted.”

Tom Crone & Colin Myler

Crone: News Of The World’s ex-legal manager

Myler: News Of The World’s ex-editor (currently New York Daily News editor)

• “Both Tom Crone and Colin Myler deliberately avoided disclosing crucial information to the Committee and, when asked to do, answered questions falsely.”
• “Both Tom Crone and Colin Myler attempted to downplay the significance of the ‘for Neville’ e-mail and made no mention of the legal opinion that they had obtained (which suggested hacking was wider-spread). In itself this amounts to an attempt to mislead the Committee about the import of a crucial piece of evidence and the failure of the company to act upon it.
• “In 2009, Tom Crone and Colin Myler asserted that they had investigated the ‘for Neville’ e-mail and that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegation that journalists other than Clive Goodman had been involved in phone-hacking … They clearly did not tell truth to us then.”

James Murdoch

Ex-News International executive chairman

• “Surprising as it may seem that James Murdoch did not ask to see this crucial piece of evidence, nor the independent Counsel’s opinion, his lack of curiosity—but wilful ignorance even—subsequently is more astonishing.”
• “We are astonished that James Murdoch did not seek more information or ask to see the evidence and counsel’s opinion when he was briefed by Tom Crone and Colin Myler on the Gordon Taylor case. Even for a large company, £700,000 is a not inconsequential sum of money, and it is extraordinary that the Chief Executive should authorise its payment on the basis of such scant information. If he did, indeed, not ask to see either document, particularly the counsel’s opinion, this clearly raises questions of competence on the part of News International’s then Chairman and Chief Executive.”
• “If he did not read the e-mail chain, there is no good excuse for this and it betrays an astonishing lack of curiosity on the part of a Chief Executive.”
• “It was as late as December 2010 that James Murdoch—and Rupert Murdoch—realised that the one ‘rogue reporter’ line was untrue. This, we consider, to be simply astonishing.”

Rupert Murdoch

CEO and chairman, News Corp

• “Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications.”
• “This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.”
• “Rupert Murdoch told this Committee that his alleged lack of oversight of News International and the News of the World was due to it being “less than 1% of our company”. This self-portrayal, however, as a hands-off proprietor is entirely at odds with numerous other accounts, including those of previous editors and from Rebekah Brooks, who told us she spoke to Rupert Murdoch regularly and ‘on average, every other day’. It was, indeed, we consider, a misleading account of his involvement and influence with his newspapers.”

Rebekah Brooks

Ex-editor, The Sun & ex-CEO, News International

• “None of these scenarios casts Rebekah Brooks … in a positive light: either they should have been more frank or else they should have been better informed.”
• “For those actions, and the culture which permitted them, the Editor should accept responsibility.”

News International

• The company “wished to buy silence in this affair and to pay to make this problem go away”.
• “News International repeatedly made misleading and exaggerated claims regarding the ‘investigations’ it had purportedly commissioned following the arrests of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire.”
• “Senior executives at News International undoubtedly extolled the thoroughness of the reviews rather too fervently.”
• “Evidence given by News International executives (until August 2011) had been vague and at times incomplete.”

News Corporation

• “The whole affair demonstrates huge failings of corporate governance at the company and its parent, News Corporation.”

His interrogator Robert Jay was careful, almost ginger at times as he tried to get at News Corps.’ transgressions, perceived, real or accused, and the patriarch’s role. (As a viewer, I occasionally wanted to yell “just pull off the scab; don’t pick at it.”) Jay also has a penchant for assuming and assigning intent or feelings.

Murdoch, whose son James doesn’t have nearly the range, was alternately straightforward, passionate, defensive, assertive, irked, and a tad bemused. Expecting an octogenarian Darth Vader? Murdoch competitor the New York Times picked up last summer’s cartoon comparison: “engagingly modest, self-deprecating, charming and funny, a balding, bespectacled Mr. Magoo lookalike.”

Murdoch is a charming guy. He can be shy in a crowd and instantly authoritative. He’s clearly having fun with his direct-to-consumer Twitter feed — using it for jabs and comments he wants heard but then turning dismissive when people listen. Take this exchange with Jay to open the festivities Wednesday:

Q. Some recent tweets of yours betray a hostile approach to right wingers and toffs. Who were you referring to?

A. That was rather a load — don’t take my tweets too seriously. I think I was really saying that the extremists on both sides were piling in on me.

Twitter is public but it isn’t under oath. Everything Murdoch said on the stand, as well as any written statements, could be actionable if Lord Justice Leveson or others think he has lied. He quickly came under fire from outside the Inquiry, which was convened by Prime Minister David Cameron — with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the lead.

At the same time, Murdoch came off — to me, at least — as genuinely sincere in his regrets over phone hacking, particularly the hacking of young murder victim Milly Dowler’s cellphone — although he also took time to mention that some of the Dowler allegations were inaccurate and to try to shield his son James and protege Rebekah Brooks.

He channeled a little early Ali:

I should have gone there and thrown all the damn lawyers out of the place and seen Mr Goodman one-on-one — he’d been an employee for a long time — and cross-examined him myself and made up my mind, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly: was he telling the truth? And if I had come to the conclusion that he was telling the truth, I would have torn the place apart and we wouldn’t be here today. I’m talking 2007. But that’s hindsight, which, of course, is a lot easier than foresight …

And he channeled his inner conspiracist, claiming that unidentified people at now-defunct News of the World deliberately blocked senior News Intl. execs — most notably people named Brooks and Murdoch –from learning that hacking wasn’t the work of Clive Goodman alone:

… There’s no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were victim to.

Jay parried, suggesting Murdoch and News Corp. were the ones covering up.

Q. Some might say that all this picture is consistent with one of a desire to cover up rather than a desire to expose. Would you agree with that?

A. Well, people with minds like yours, yes, perhaps.

That clever riposte almost got him into trouble and he quickly walked it back.

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, oh.

A. I’m sorry, I take that back. Excuse me.

MR JAY: I’m very thick skinned, Mr Murdoch.

A. You seem to be.

Q. Do not worry one moment.

But Murdoch should be worried about it all.

He is unlikely to face any personal legal jeopardy — he was careful. Brooks already does and James Murdoch might yet. But the hits are going to keep coming. He can be called again, he may face inquiries in the U.S. and the Murdochs and News Corp. are likely to be singed by the Leveson report.

His reputation has taken a huge hit – over hacking and the fallout but also because of his machinations to deny being a powerbroker and the unveiling of the UK version of the smoke-filled room.

This round of testimony is over. The story is not. (The transcript is here.)

News Corp. Chief Digital Officer and Chairman/CEO, Digital Media Group Jon Miller will be appearing at paidContent 2012, May 23 in New York City.

“For us, this is a huge catalyst for change actually,” Nick Bell, who joined his first corporate gig in October after a career as a young digital entrepreneur and investor, told paidContent.

“Tom Mockridge joined as CEO. When any new CEO joins an organisation, there’s going to be change. From a digital perspective, we like to think we saw it as an opportunity to drive forward some of the change.

“It’s probably had the opposite effect of slowing us down – it’s probably focused us more on how we innovate. It’s focused our minds on how we make sure the customers who are paying for our products are getting value for money, making sure we look after our customers. The focus on our customers has increased.”

Now 28, Bell was a teenage dot.com star. In 1999, he founded an early content site, Teenfront.com and attracted around 500,000 unique monthly users before selling it to Rools for reportedly close to £1 million, aged 16.

He later formed a business establishing sunbed and tanning studios inside Tesco stores, founded and later sold his stake in a business providing video screens to the luxury yacht market and started Quick.tv, an online video company that raised seed funding and which is now working on web video ad tech. Bell remains interested in startup investing.

Bell, along with leavers from Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) and Google (NSDQ: GOOG), was hired by News International chief information officer Paul Cheesbrough to inject some of this spirit in to the publisher. Now he says using data to understand customers and constant product iteration are his guiding principles.

“When I joined the organisation, it was traditional IT-oriented,” Bell told me. “It would be a slow process, three to six months, to do a piece of work. Then that team would get disbanded to go and do something else. We’ve moved toward a product stream where we have key products and a team that constantly iterates. It’s about listening to the customer.”

One example, whose original debut pre-dates Bell, is The Times’ iPad edition, which launched fast, alongside the tablet, in the UK and which took a small dose of customer criticism for bugs, which were ironed out in routine updates. By contrast, The Guardian recently launched its first iPad edition around a year and a half after the gadget went on sale.

“We recently introduced an R&D lab,” Bell says. “In a slightly Google-esque manner, every member of our technology team now will spend one twelfth of their time cycling through the innovation lab. It creates a space where they think about problems differently.

“Some of the products coming out of there are very interesting. We’ve been through our first couple of cycles there. We’ve learned something from every product created in the lab – some of those will start to be baked back in to our core apps.”

This kind of “hacking” (of code) is a refreshing alternative to the one which has engulfed News International over the last year.

“Of my team of peers, five or six of us invest in businesses as well,” he says. But News International, which previously invested in digital property classifieds startups, has now sold on those assets, and Bell appears keener that the publisher partner with startups than take equity in them.

Bell cites “working with smaller, agile more companies” like Livefyre, a story comments platform operator which News International took an early bet on enlisting. “Being prepared to work with small startups of best-of-breed is key.”

The phone-hacking claims that have been settled have been brought by Mark Oaten, Ulrika Jonsson, Abi Titmuss, Michelle Milburn, Paul Dadge, James Hewitt and Calum Best.

In a statement NGN said it has agreed to pay “appropriate sums by way of compensation” and “expressed regret for the distress caused”.

Earlier on Tuesday Hugh Tomlinson, counsel for the alleged victims, told the high court in London that six claimants had settled with NGN.

Tomlinson declined to name those who had reached a deal with NGN and it is not clear why there is a discrepancy between the number who he said had settled and the statement issued by the newspaper publisher.

He told the high court that News International is keen to settle all of the cases out of court, but indicated that would not be possible.

“It’s appropriate to say at this point in time that News International has indicated a desire to settle litigation completely and settle all the cases,” he said. “But it’s not anticipated that we will be able to settle in every case because some give rise to issues which have to be tried.”

Tomlinson added that it would be sensible to put back the trial date from 13 January.

Several alleged victims of phone hacking by the News of the World want the title’s publisher to speed up its disclosure of “a very large number of deleted emails” between journalists and executives at the title, the high court also heard.

Tomlinson said there is “a big problem” in obtaining the messages from NGN when they are requested.

He wants Mr Justice Vos to require that the publisher must hand over the material to the police and lawyers by a “required end point”.

NGN is trawling through many thousands of emails between journalists in the hunt for key evidence about the use of illicit news gathering techniques at the media group.

Tomlinson told the court the emails are important because they are a second source in addition to the seized notebooks of Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator used by NoW.

He said that the “complexion” of the phone-hacking test cases due to be heard next month could be different “if previously deleted emails are produced”.

“Jude Law appears to be one of the most serious victims in terms of volume [of alleged intercepts] over a number of years,” Tomlinson told the court. “We’ve not seen one single email relating to Jude Law before 2005 [from NGN] and it is possible that emails were sent.”

The court heard that the delay in disclosing the emails arises from the need for the deleted messages to be “reconstituted” before being handed over.

This article originally appeared in MediaGuardian.

News International’s law firm Linklaters – in a Monday letter to the House of Commons’ culture, media and sport committee – said it “recently became aware of” an email News Of The World editor Colin Myler sent to Murdoch in June 2008, in which Myler warns “it is as bad as we feared“. It also contained full advice from in-house lawyer Tom Crone and the firm’s previous legal firm Farrer & Co.

Murdoch – in his own apologetic new letter to the committee – says: “I only became aware of the email on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 when it was passed to me by the management standards committee.”

But the e-mail transcript given to the committee shows how Murdoch responded immediately to Myler to say: “No worries. I am in during the afternoon. If you want to talk before, I’ll be home tonight after seven and most of the day tomorrow.”

In his new letter to MPs, Murdoch explains: “Given the timing of my response, just over two minutes after Mr Myler had sent this e-mail to me, and the fact that I typically received e-mails on my BlackBerry on weekends, I am confident that I did not review the full e-mail chain at the time or afterwards.”

In other words, Murdoch acknowledged Myler’s warning, ignored lawyers’ full advice contained in Myler’s mail and did not return to either after the weekend – because he used his BlackBerry to scan e-mails rather than read at length.

The Commons committee may well now end up criticising Murdoch’s professional aptitude.

Ordinarily, that might force a knock-on consequence for his place in News Corp. (NSDQ: NWS) But Murdoch has already just been re-elected by News Corp and BSkyB (NYSE: BSY) for another year.

And such a criticism may be preferable to an alternative possible conclusion – that he wilfully misled parliament over the matter. By disclosing the existence of the e-mail now, even at this belated stage, he may at least have evaded that charge.

In his e-mail, Myler had asked Murdoch for “five minutes with you on Tuesday” – a meeting on which Murdoch, in his new letter, says he based his earlier testimony, in which he said he was not made fully aware of the scale of phone hacking.

PH 50 Letter From Linklaters to Chairman 12 Dec 2011

PH 50A James Murdoch to Chair 12 December 2011

Thirteen new legal writs, from claimaints including Sarah’s law campaigner Sara Payne and 7/7 hero Paul Dadge, were issued against Rupert Murdoch’s company on Monday, which followed 24 the week before.

Payne campaigned with the News of the World to change the law so that parents could obtain access to information about paedophiles following the murder of her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah.

Another writ was in the name of Paul Dadge, the man whose image was published across the world after he was photographed helping victims of the 7/7 tube bombings.

There were also writs from singer Dannii Minogue, Paul Burrell, Princess Diana’s former butler, and Shaun Russell, whose daughter Josie survived a hammer attack in which her mother and sister were killed in 1996.

According to people familiar with the situation, the sudden flurry of writs occurred because of a judicial cut-off point for initial claims.

It is thought the rash of lawsuits has been triggered by a deadline set by Mr Justice Vos to consider claims ahead of a January trial of a few test cases to determine how much News International should pay in damages to five of the victims.

Among the high-profile names in the 63 writs are the former Downing Street communications chief Alastair Campbell and politicians, including John Prescott, Simon Hughes, Denis MacShane, Chris Bryant, Mark Oaten, Tessa Jowell and George Galloway.

There are several actors in the list, such as Jude Law and Sadie Frost, and TV personalities including Steve Coogan and Ulrika Jonsson.

There are also writs in the names of George Best’s son, Calum, footballer Ashley Cole, rugby player Gavin Henson and jockey Kieren Fallon.

Some of the writs involve more than one person. For example, Charlotte Church is joined in her lawsuit by her mother, Maria, and stepfather James.

The overwhelming majority of the writs have been issued jointly against News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that published the now defunct News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who worked under contract for the Sunday tabloid.

However, one – by singer Cornelia Crisan – also names the former News of the World chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, and another of the paper’s former reporters as defendants in her claim.

It is the first phone-hacking lawsuit to target Thurlbeck. He was arrested and bailed in April for alleged phone hacking but has not been charged. He is suing News International for unfair dismissal.

Thurlbeck said: “As I said last week, the truth will out. But this will be in the law courts and at a public tribunal.”

The number and range of the claims has taken some legal observers by surprise. One source said it suggests that News International’s £20 ($30.9) million contingency fund to deal with legal claims will not be anywhere near enough to cover the final total.

One of the lawyers acting for some of the hacking victims, Mark Lewis, told Bloomberg News: “So far, fewer than 5 percent of the victims of Glenn Mulcaire have been notified.

“He was just one agent used by one paper. When the final tally takes place, we will see thousands of claims and more than one paper.”

Lewis said that, as the number of claimants grows, estimates that Murdoch’s company would need at least £100 ($154.54)m to settle such claims looks like “a serious underestimate”.

His logic is based on the fact that only 200 people have been identified from the 4,000 names said to be on documents that were seized from Mulcaire’s house in 2006, when he was arrested with the News of the World’s former royal editor Clive Goodman. Both Mulcaire and Goodman were jailed for phone hacking in early 2007.

About half of those initially identified have launched legal actions. So, if the same proportion of the full 4,000 were to sue, then News International’s liability, in terms of damages plus legal costs would be colossal.

News International has already offered to pay one of Lewis’s clients, the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, £3 ($4.64) million.

Media lawyer Niri Shan, of Taylor Wessing, said that victims who file claims before next year’s trial could benefit because “there is a level of uncertainty about what the court will award” in January. He added: “[News International parent company] News Corp may overpay to get rid of claimants.”

This article originally appeared in MediaGuardian.

Murdoch’s youngest son is the company’s deputy chief operating officer, the third most powerful executive at the company overseeing News Corp’s European and Asian businesses including News International and BSkyB (NYSE: BSY), and has been earmarked by his father as his successor.

Pirc, which advises shareholders on corporate governance issues, said: “In light of his close association with the phone-hacking scandal we are advising shareholders to oppose James Murdoch’s election.”

Pirc said in written advice on Tuesday:

“We question James Murdoch’s suitability as a senior executive and potential successor to Rupert Murdoch. As a senior executive at News International it is unclear why he did not initiate in-depth inquiries at an earlier stage and why former colleagues now directly and publicly contradict his stated position that he was unaware that hacking extended beyond [Clive] Goodman [the News of the World's former royal editor].”

Murdoch insists he was not told about an email which indicated that phone hacking at the paper was being carried out by more than one “rogue reporter”, Goodman.

The News of the World’s former editor Colin Myler and its head of legal Tom Crone have disputed this. Murdoch has been recalled to appear before MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport committee later this year to explain the discrepancy.

“Up until the closure of the News of the World, News International’s response to the unfolding events had not been decisive and featured a number of arrests and resignations rather than dismissals,” Pirc added.

Pirc has consistently opposed the re-election of News Corp directors with close links to Rupert Murdoch, the company’s chairman and chief executive, including James Murdoch.

“Pirc’s key governance concerns focus on the position of James Murdoch as a member of the News Corp board and the implications for minority investors of continuing dominance of the company by the Murdoch family,” the group added.

Family trusts controlled by Murdoch own 12% of News Corp but control around 40% of shares with voting rights, effectively giving them the power to veto any takeover bid.

paidContent adds: Pirc in July said BSkyB should replace James Murdoch with a new independent chairperson.

This article originally appeared in MediaGuardian.

Alice Macandrew, Murdoch’s spokesperson, handed in her notice in July at the height of the hacking crisis – but news of her departure has only just become public after News Corp tried and failed to make her change her mind.

She becomes one of the first senior executives to quit News Corp voluntarily over disagreements with the company’s approach, which saw the publisher contest phone-hacking lawsuits brought by celebrities and other public figures in 2010 and early 2011 and close the News of the World in July.

Macandrew was personally appointed by Murdoch as his chief press spokesperson in 2009, and was a key adviser on the company’s media strategy from the moment the first stories about phone hacking were written by the Guardian. She reported to Matthew Anderson, group director for strategy and corporate affairs.

In July, it emerged that News of the World had hacked into the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, prompting a three-week crisis at the company. News Corp initially responded by closing the News of the World, but in the week after the company was forced to abandon its £8bn bid for full control of BSkyB (NYSE: BSY) and the News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, was forced to resign.

It is understood that Macandrew will leave the company at the end of the year, having served out her notice period. Both News Corporation and Macandrew declined to comment.

This article originally appeared in MediaGuardian.

The new detail on Taylor’s confidential negotiations has emerged in a letter from News of the World‘s legal advisers to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee.

“We suggested making an initial offer of £50,000, ($80,095.81)” said Farrer & Co, which advised News International over the level of payouts. “However we advised that it was inevitable that Mr Taylor would want more in view of the fact that his initial demand for £250,000 ($400,479.07) had been increased by £750,000 ($1,201,437.21) to £1 ($1.6) million.”

When the first two offers were refused, News of the World told Farrer to increase the offer again.

“The firm was instructed to increase the Part 36 offer to £350,000. ($560,670.69) This offer was also rejected. Mr Lewis [Mark, Taylor's solicitor] informed Mr Pike [Julian, a partner at Farrer] that Mr Taylor ‘wanted to be vindicated or made rich’.”

At that point Taylor was demanding £1 ($1.6) million in settlement as by now the significance of the so-called “for Neville” e-mail was understood.

“Following the disclosure of documents by the Metropolitan police and others to Mr Taylor, which were then disclosed by Mr Taylor to NGN [News Group Newspapers], Mr Taylor demanded £1 ($1.6) million in way of settlement, plus costs,” Farrer confirms in its letter to the select committee.

In the end Taylor managed to get £425,000 ($680,814.41) in damages from the News of the World plus costs. James Murdoch confirmed at the select committee hearing in July that Taylor’s overall payout was between £600,000 ($961,149.76) and £700,000 ($1,121,341.4) including costs.

Other letters just published by the select committee reveal:

– Stuart Kuttner, the former managing editor of News of the World, has written to say he is unable to re-appear before the select committee because of a police investigation and ill health. He told the committee he had “a heart attack and stroke last year and a further heart attack last month”.

– Jon Chapman, the former head of the legal affairs at News International, did not receive £1 ($1.6).6 million in a settlement when he left the company. His solicitors have told the committee his “compromise agreement with News International was a small fraction of £1 ($1.6).6 million”. He continues to have the company’s private medical insurance until September 2012.

This article originally appeared in MediaGuardian.