«Fewer scoops, but fewer breaches» Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg explained that the police may have passed
information about phone hacking to the Crown Prosecution Service, who may have decided not to charge more journalists.
Not exact matches
These charges were made
about one year after the Metropolitan Police Service reopened its dormant investigation into
phone hacking, [259]
about three years after the then Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service told the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee that «no additional evidence has come to light,» [56] five years after News International executives began claiming that
phone hacking was the work of a single «rogue reporter,» [260] ten years after The Guardian began reporting that the Met had evidence of widespread illegal acquisition of confidential
information, [261] and 13 years after the Met began accumulating «boxloads» of that evidence but kept it unexamined in bin bags at Scotland Yard.
Their report concluded that it was «inconceivable» that no one, other than Goodman, knew
about the extent of
phone hacking at the paper, and that the Committee had «repeatedly encountered an unwillingness to provide the detailed
information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall and deliberate obfuscation».
John Prescott has said he intends to seek a judicial review after the Metropolitan police refused to supply him with
information about phone -
hacking.
While some of the reports
about Mr Brown concern
phone -
hacking, many others are instances of «blagging» where someone tries to access
information by acting or impersonation.
It is almost universally agreed that
phone -
hacking of this kind, simply trawling for
information about people in the news, or their families, is repugnant.
The reporter has admitted to
phone hacking voice mails illegally, and he also somehow obtained confidential
information about a U.S. global warming skeptic blogger that only the UK police were in possession of.