1             2   (2.00 pm)             3   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes, Mr Jay.             4   MR JAY:  Mr Rowland, we're on the issue of impact now and             5       you pick this up at paragraph 22 of your witness             6       statement.             7   A.  Yes.             8   Q.  In your own words, how would you characterise it?             9   A.  Well, it's an intrusion, firstly.  They have no right to            10       do that.  It's appalling that it should happen.  I had            11       a large number of really quite sensitive business            12       contacts that -- where it would be both embarrassing and            13       potentially awful for my business if this information            14       leaked out and it was traced back to me, and I felt that            15       there was also an element that -- I mean, I've never            16       worked for the News of the World, at that time I didn't            17       know any News of the World journalists, but if they            18       wanted to come and ask me something, then why was it            19       that they routinely got someone to hack my phone instead            20       of coming to me and asking?            21   Q.  Press regulation.  You've obviously thought about this            22       carefully and deeply.  You give us the benefit of your            23       views in paragraph 23 in your witness statement and            24       following.  You've, I think, heard a lot of the evidence            25       over the last few days.  You've been taking a keen                                             1             1       interest in this Inquiry.  What are your             2       recommendations, please?             3   A.  Well, I mean, when I was at the Daily Telegraph, I did             4       a large number of investigative stories in a slightly             5       odd climate, because if you'll recall, the Telegraph at             6       the time was owned by Conrad Black, Lord Black, current             7       address Cell Block H somewhere in Florida.  He was             8       forever, if you recall, buying and selling the newspaper             9       or shares in the newspaper.  He was either privatising            10       it or floating it and that meant there was a constant            11       regime of due diligence going on and he was frightened            12       that having unresolved defamation actions on the book            13       would damage the potential valuation of the paper.            14           So there was a lot of moaning at the Telegraph among            15       the journalists that what they saw as innocuous pieces            16       that were routinely being put into other newspapers were            17       being held out of the Telegraph by the in-house            18       defamation lawyers.  So it was a quite repressive, they            19       said, regime.            20           Now I wanted to get more investigative stories in,            21       if I possibly could, so I adopted a different approach,            22       which was to go along to the in-house defamation lawyers            23       and ask one simple question, which is what do I have to            24       do to this story in order for you to be happy to run it?            25       And they said, well, you know, you need to check all of                                             2             1       the sources, you need to make sure that you have proper             2       witness statements when you need it, you need to decide             3       all of the things that Alan Rusbridger was talking about             4       in the sort of lists of things that people do these             5       days.  They were making sure I did.             6           It occurred to me that the mantra that exists at the             7       moment, the orthodoxy that more regulation or tighter             8       regulation of the press will inhibit press freedom             9       because journalists will have a lawyer standing at their            10       elbow at the time, actually is completely wrong.  Having            11       a lawyer standing at your elbow improves the quality of            12       what you do because the lawyer is the only person in the            13       office, the defamation lawyer, who acts as a proper            14       quality control mechanism.            15           Everybody in a newspaper room think they know what            16       a good story is.  There's very few regulatory mechanisms            17       there to say, well, is it fair?  Is it accurate?  And            18       has it been put to the people properly before you run            19       it?  And because I went through that mechanism, I look            20       back at them now and I think actually they were very            21       good stories and part of the reason was I had all of            22       this great advice that was being given to me.            23           So when things did go to some extent wrong and            24       people complained and I was taken to the Press            25       Complaints Commission on three occasions -- I checked                                             3             1       with the PCC actually before this Inquiry started, and             2       I was the very first national newspaper journalist to be             3       exonerated in a PCC inquiry.  And the reason I was             4       exonerated is because I'd had the stories lawyered             5       backwards, forwards, up and down, and they were as tight             6       as we could possibly make them.             7           I would argue that is an entirely beneficial             8       process.             9           I'd also say that I think there's been a disastrous            10       deterioration in the last ten years in a lot of ways            11       because more and more stories are written by freelance            12       journalists and they do not have the same access to the            13       same legal resources.            14           I'll give you an example.  I worked for a long            15       time -- well, quite a long time, when they set up the            16       supplement I was talking about at the Mail on Sunday, so            17       I was a Mail on Sunday freelance journalist, and I was            18       put in the position of running stories where I thought            19       corners were being cut and I didn't have access to            20       proper legal advice before they were run, and there was            21       one particular occasion when -- it was a very high            22       profile -- I won't refer to the actual details of the            23       story, but it was as very high-profile couple who were            24       involved in some rather esoteric house purchases and            25       there was a whistle-blower and I was unsure about the                                             4             1       whistle-blower and I thought we needed to go back and do             2       some more checks, but they ran the story anyway.  And             3       I and Mr Caplan down here, the barrister for the Mail on             4       Sunday, had to actually dig them out of the hole             5       afterwards, and I would argue that the freelance             6       journalists should have been talking to the lawyers             7       before it was published, not afterwards.             8   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  All right.             9   MR JAY:  Thank you very much, Mr Rowland.  You've given your            10       evidence very clearly, thank you very much.  May I just            11       check, is there anything you would wish to add?            12   A.  Yes, there is one thing.            13   Q.  Yes, okay.            14   A.  When you had the seminars, sir, there was talk there            15       about press practices in the 1970s and how they've            16       improved greatly because of the regime that's been put            17       into place by the PCC.  One of the examples that was            18       given was the theft of photographs, and I think it was            19       Mr Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, who said that            20       such a practice was outrageous and that it no longer            21       took place.            22           Well, I would disagree.  I think that there are            23       many, many more photographs that are stolen these days,            24       but they're stolen electronically.  It's not in my            25       evidence or my witness statement, but I had examples of                                             5             1       photographs that have been quite blatantly and             2       shamelessly stolen by national newspapers, not in the             3       1970s but almost within the last seven months.             4           The example I'm thinking about, I actually have an             5       audit trail, because I was involved in it, that I've             6       pieced together so you can see what was done and when,             7       or rather what wasn't done and when, and they just             8       sliced off the watermark on the bottom with the             9       copyright notice of the photographer, and then refused            10       to pay him.  And that, in Mr Dacre's word, is actually            11       outrageous and it's an abuse that could be stopped by            12       a regime of punitive fines and that, I hope, is            13       something that the Inquiry will think about putting into            14       place.            15           I can make that photograph available to you, if you            16       think it might help, and put it into the record.  I'm            17       prepared to do that.            18   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  We'll decide whether we should put it            19       formally into the material that is read into the record.            20       Thank you very much indeed.            21   A.  Okay.            22   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Thank you.            23   MR JAY:  Thank you.  I don't think we need a break.  Shall            24       we move on to the next person?            25   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  We don't need a break after seven                                             6             1       minutes, Mr Jay.             2   MR JAY:  The next witnesses are Dr And Dr McCann, please.             3    DR GERALD PATRICK McCANN and DR KATE MARIE McCANN (sworn)             4   MR JAY:  Thank you very much.  First of all, I'm going to             5       invite each of you to provide us with your full names,             6       please.             7   MR McCANN:  Gerald Patrick McCann.             8   MRS McCANN:  Kate Marie McCann.             9   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Before we start, you've probably            10       heard me thank others before you for coming along,            11       voluntarily, to speak of matters which I have no doubt            12       are intensely personal and extremely sensitive, and I am            13       very, very grateful to you for doing so.            14           In your case, of course, nobody, and in particular            15       nobody with children, could fail to appreciate the            16       terrible impact of your daughter's abduction on you and            17       your family, so words of sympathy for these appalling            18       circumstances are utterly inadequate, but I am very            19       grateful to you for coming.            20   MR JAY:  I know each of you would like your counsel to ask            21       a few preliminary questions.  Before he does so,            22       formally can I invite you to confirm the contents of            23       your respective witness statements.  You, Dr Gerald            24       McCann, there's a statement dated 30 October, and            25       there's a statement of truth at the end of it.  Is that                                             7             1       correct?             2   MR McCANN:  It is.             3   Q.  And then Dr Kate McCann, a far more recent statement             4       referring to your husband's statement and again with             5       a statement of truth dated 22 November; is that right?             6   MRS McCANN:  That's right.             7   MR JAY:  Just a few questions from Mr Sherborne and then             8       I will proceed.             9                    Questions by MR SHERBORNE            10   MR SHERBORNE:  Thank you.  As Mr Jay said, I'm going to just            11       ask you a few preliminary questions.            12           Everybody is well aware, particularly following the            13       submissions last week, that you've been forced to take            14       a number of legal complaints or actions as a result of            15       some of the coverage that you received following the            16       abduction of your daughter.  Not just articles that were            17       published, but also to stop articles being published,            18       often on weekends, and I know that Mr Jay is going to            19       talk to you about that in due course.            20           Can I just ask you, though, have you ever had to            21       give evidence before?            22   MR McCANN:  No.            23   Q.  So this is the first and, I hope, the last time.  Given            24       that you've had a lifetime of lawyers, nice ones, of            25       course, can you just explain to the Inquiry why you've                                             8             1       agreed to give evidence?             2   MR McCANN:  I think it's for one simple reason, in that we             3       feel that a system has to be put in place to protect             4       ordinary people from the damage that the media can cause             5       by their activity, which falls well below the standards             6       that I would deem acceptable.             7   Q.  Of course, we all here understand that your overriding             8       objective is the continuing search for your daughter.             9       We've seen from your statements, or we will see, once            10       the statements are publicly made available, that in            11       terms of reporting, you've experienced what I might call            12       the good, the bad and the particularly ugly side of the            13       press.  One might ask this: is it helpful to have            14       Madeleine permanently in the public eye?            15   MR McCANN:  I've talked about this on several occasions in            16       the past, and I do not feel it's helpful, and            17       particularly at the time when there were daily stories            18       running throughout 2007 and 2008.  It became very            19       apparent to us early on there was an incredible amount            20       of speculation and misinformation.  It led to confusion            21       amongst people.  All we need to do is periodically            22       remind the public who have supported us so much that            23       Madeleine is still missing, there's an ongoing search            24       and those responsible for taking her are still at large            25       and have to be brought to justice.                                             9             1   MRS McCANN:  I was just going to say obviously there was a             2       period when Madeleine was on the front page of a paper             3       every day, and I know occasionally people would say to             4       me "That has to be a good thing, hasn't it?  She's in             5       the public eye", and that isn't the case because when             6       the story is so negative about her, and we'll come into             7       that, obviously then that is not helpful.  As Gerry             8       said, I think it's a reminder that's important, that's             9       all.            10   Q.  That's Madeleine.  What about you both being in the            11       public eye?  Is that helpful?            12   MR McCANN:  I don't think it is helpful.  Obviously we            13       realise that as Madeleine's parents, and particularly            14       given what's happened to us, that if we are delivering            15       the message, then it offers more appeal and is more            16       likely to get coverage.  And of course we have also            17       acknowledged that the media have been very helpful on            18       occasion particularly when we have launched appeals, and            19       huge amounts of information have come into the inquiry            20       as a direct result of our appeals, and we'd like to            21       thank everyone in the public who have come forward.            22   Q.  Finally can I ask you this: there are a number of            23       specific things you'll be asked about and Mr Jay is            24       going to take you through your statement, but it might            25       help Lord Justice Leveson and the Inquiry if you could                                            10             1       just outline in very general headline terms what your             2       concerns are about the culture, practices and ethics of             3       the press.             4   MR McCANN:  I think there are four main areas I would be             5       keen to give evidence on that we have direct experience             6       of.  One is obviously libel, which has been very well             7       publicised, but then also the lasting damage it causes.             8       Secondly, the privacy laws and current, I would say,             9       gaps in legislation at the minute where companies can            10       use photographs, can hound you, without your consent,            11       for commercial gain.            12           I think there has been contempt demonstrated by the            13       media, primarily the press but to some extent            14       broadcasters as well, both for the judicial process and            15       also at times Madeleine's safety.  And the fourth thing,            16       which probably is not regulated by law and I hope this            17       Inquiry will deal with, is about what are acceptable            18       standards and how individual journalists and corporate            19       entities, editors and subeditors, are held to account.            20   MR SHERBORNE:  I'm very grateful.  If you wait there, Mr Jay            21       has more questions for you.            22                      Questions from MR JAY            23   MR JAY:  Dr McCann, I have an eye on those four themes and            24       if you don't mind, I'll come back to them at the end of            25       your evidence.  Your witness statement is publicly                                            11             1       available and I can see it out of the corner of my eye             2       on a screen, but if you could have it in front of you in             3       print, you tell us in terms of your career you're             4       a consultant cardiologist.             5   MR McCANN:  That's correct.             6   Q.  And in terms of fixing ourselves back into the dates,             7       the abduction of your daughter, I think was it 3 May             8       2007?             9   A.  That's correct.            10   Q.  You tell us in your witness statement that a photograph            11       was made immediately available, provided to the            12       broadcast media and to the press, and was, as it were,            13       displayed everywhere.  Is that correct?            14   A.  There's two elements to that.  The first element was            15       what we were doing on the night and obviously we had            16       digital cameras and we were trying to get photographs            17       printed of Madeleine from the holiday.            18   Q.  Yes.            19   A.  To give to the police, but secondly, a very good friend            20       of ours who we spoke to in the early hours of 4 May took            21       upon himself to issue photographs of Madeleine to all            22       the major media outlets in the UK.            23   Q.  Within a very short space of time, the British press and            24       perhaps the international press had descended on            25       Praia da Luz; is that correct?                                            12             1   A.  It is.             2   Q.  And you had to make a decision as to whether to interact             3       with them and, if so, on what basis?             4   A.  Yes.             5   Q.  And what decision did you make and why?             6   A.  The first thing to say is it was incredibly daunting.             7       We had been away all day.  It was also apparent to us             8       whilst we were in the police station of Porto Mario(?)             9       in the Algarve that there was already extensive            10       coverage, particularly on Sky News, which was running in            11       the police station, somewhat bizarrely, and when we were            12       driving back towards the apartment, it was in the            13       evening and we could literally see tens, if not hundreds            14       of journalists outside the apartment and satellite vans,            15       et cetera, a large number of cameras.            16           There were two things going through my head: what            17       are they going to be saying?  And we've seen, I think,            18       over many years our privacy being invaded and what            19       stories could be published, but ultimately, possibly            20       because we've seen the same thing being done in the UK,            21       I thought it was an opportunity to issue an appeal.            22       I was given no guidance one way or the other whether to            23       do that.  I knew there could be a very heavy downside to            24       interacting, but I made the decision at the time with            25       the information I had that it would probably be in the                                            13             1       best interests of the search for our daughter, and             2       decided to interact.             3   Q.  Yes.  You say in your statement, paragraph 15, that in             4       the initial stages, your engagement with the press             5       worked well.  Are you able to amplify that just a little             6       bit for us, please?             7   A.  I think for those people who can remember, it was a very             8       unusual scenario, and we got a distinct impression that             9       there was a genuine want to help attitude from the            10       journalists there, and I think also many of the            11       executives who perhaps saw what had happened to us and            12       there was a huge amount of empathy.  So I really did            13       feel early on there was a desire to help.            14   Q.  As you explain, the position changed, but the segue            15       perhaps into that change is some evidence you give in            16       relation to the Portuguese criminal system.  Now each            17       culture, each nation has a slightly different criminal            18       system, and obviously there can be no criticism about            19       that, but what you say in Portugal is that there is no            20       permitted interaction between the law enforcement            21       agencies and the press; is that correct?            22   A.  That's correct.            23   Q.  Do you have a view as to the possible drawbacks of that,            24       without necessarily being critical, but it's pretty            25       obvious it gives rise to the possibility of leaks,                                            14             1       doesn't it?             2   A.  Sure.  I think the system is open to abuse is the first             3       thing, and clearly there was a ferocious appetite and             4       perhaps in the United Kingdom with the SIO and the press             5       office for the constabulary leading the investigation             6       would have had a very clear agenda on how to work with             7       the media, what information could be disclosed, what             8       might be helpful, and steering journalists away from             9       certain areas.            10           Obviously there was none of that happening, and            11       there was tremendous pressure on the Portuguese            12       authorities to interact with the media, and some of you            13       may remember the very first time that happened, the            14       spokesperson gave a short statement that didn't really            15       say anything, was asked a number of questions and            16       followed every single one of them with, "I can't give            17       you any details because of judicial secrecy".            18   Q.  Yes.            19   A.  So there was a huge appetite, and we quickly realised            20       that there was a tremendous amount of speculation in the            21       coverage both in the newspapers and also you had 24-hour            22       news channels there constantly, and we found that to be            23       unhelpful.            24   Q.  In terms of the conduit type of information, is this            25       correct, that whatever the strict legal position in                                            15             1       Portugal, information was being leaked by the Portuguese             2       police to the Portuguese press, that's stage one, and             3       having been leaked to the Portuguese press, the British             4       press then picked up on that self-same information,             5       that's stage two?  Is that an accurate description?             6   A.  I cannot tell you for certain that it was the Portuguese             7       police who were leaking information, but for anyone who             8       followed the headlines in July, August and September             9       2007, I think it would be a perfectly reasonable            10       assumption to make that elements of the inquiry were            11       speaking to the Portuguese police -- sorry, Portuguese            12       press.  I do not know whether they were speaking            13       directly to the British media, but what we clearly saw            14       were snippets of information which as far as I was            15       concerned the British media could not tell whether it            16       was true or not, which was then reported, often            17       exaggerated and blown up into many tens, in fact            18       hundreds of front page headlines.            19   Q.  The British press did not have the means of verifying            20       the information, but your complaint is that the            21       information was distorted and magnified; do I have it            22       right?            23   A.  I think I'm complaining on all of the grounds, that they            24       didn't know the source, didn't know whether it was            25       accurate, it was exaggerated and often downright                                            16             1       untruthful and often I believe, on occasions, made up.             2   Q.  We're going to cover the detail of that in a moment,             3       Dr McCann.  Throughout the summer of 2007, the interest             4       of the British press was retained in the story, wasn't             5       it?  They were constantly there in Praia da Luz; is that             6       right?             7   A.  Yes.  It did surprise us.  Obviously after the initial             8       period, and I can understand that what we ended up doing             9       by having an international campaign was unprecedented,            10       but we did send a very clear signal, as the attention            11       focused more and more on Kate and myself, that the focus            12       should be on Madeleine and we fully expected, around            13       mid-June, for the British media to leave.  We decided we            14       had to stay in Portugal to be close to Madeleine, to be            15       close to the investigation, and certainly didn't feel            16       capable of leaving at that point, so it did surprise us            17       that there was so much ongoing interest when there            18       really wasn't very much happening.            19   Q.  In terms of the advice you were getting or not getting,            20       I'm going to put to one side the issue of the PCC into            21       a later sequence in your evidence, but you tell us in            22       your witness statement that there were two resources            23       available to you.  Paragraph 21, first of all, someone            24       from Bell Pottinger who gave you assistance.  Tell us            25       a little bit about that please and the value that person                                            17             1       was able to provide to you.             2   A.  Yes, so Alex Woolfall who works for Bell Pottinger was             3       brought out really to deal with the media crisis             4       management specialist on behalf of Mark Warner, and at             5       that point he was leading the engagement with the media             6       who were present in Praia da Luz, and he was very             7       helpful.  He just gave us some simple tips, which we've             8       tried to stick to, and that was: if you interact, what's             9       your objective, should be the question you ask yourself.            10       And how is it going to help?  And obviously our            11       objective is to find Madeleine, and that's something            12       that we have tried to apply when we interact with the            13       media.  Today is one of the exceptions, where it's not            14       the primary purpose of our engagement.            15   Q.  Thank you.  And you also mentioned someone called            16       Clarence Mitchell, who was seconded to the FCO as part            17       of the media liaison in Praia da Luz.?            18   A.  Yes.            19   Q.  And you fairly say that person's help was invaluable.            20       Is there anything you would wish to add in relation to            21       the assistance that person gave you?            22   A.  I think at times we've been criticised for having            23       somebody to deal with the media, but the volume of            24       requests was incredible, both nationally and            25       internationally, and it was almost -- well, I don't know                                            18             1       how Clarence managed it in May and early June 2007, but             2       it was a full-time job just dealing with those requests             3       and it's been very important.  As I said, we had no             4       prior media experience, but in terms of just shielding             5       us from the inquiries which were constant.             6   MRS McCANN:  Gave us a little bit of protection, really.             7   MR McCANN:  And obviously we were working very hard behind             8       the scenes, and let us spend some time with our family,             9       as well.            10   Q.  In paragraph 24 of your statement, Dr McCann, you deal            11       with the suggestion, well, here you are dealing with the            12       press and then in parentheses, on your own terms, that            13       almost allows the press open season to deal with you on            14       their terms.  Maybe I'm slightly over-exaggerating the            15       point, but in your own words, please, what is your view            16       about that suggestion?            17   A.  Well, it has been argued on many occasions that by            18       engaging then it was more or less open season, and            19       I think it's crass and insensitive to suggest that by            20       engaging with a view to trying to find your daughter,            21       that the press can write whatever they want about you            22       without punishment.            23   Q.  The next section of your statement deals with accuracy            24       of reporting and you point out that after a period of            25       time, there was little new news to report.                                            19             1   A.  Yes.             2   Q.  It may be at that point that the agenda started to morph             3       and in paragraph 27 you state "clearly it didn't take             4       long before innuendo started to creep in".  Are you able             5       to elaborate on that, if you were to wish to?             6   A.  Yeah, I mean I think there were two elements.  The             7       reporting quickly became highly speculative, and often             8       stories -- for example, there must have been "McCann             9       fury" on the front page of many newspapers over that            10       summer that would quote an unnamed source or friends,            11       and unless our phones were hacked, which I don't think            12       they were, then these were made up because they were            13       simply not true.            14           So there was clearly pressure to produce a story.            15       The reporters who were based in Praia da Luz, first            16       thing they did each day was get the Portuguese press,            17       get it translated, and decide what they were going to            18       write about, and I don't think any of it was helpful.            19   Q.  The date you give for the shift of the emphasis of the            20       media reporting is about June 2007, is it, but then you            21       feel the mood may have been moving or turning a bit in            22       the British press?  Or perhaps a bit later than that?            23   A.  Yeah, I mean obviously I think we've realised that if            24       you're in the spotlight for anything, then not            25       everything that's going to be written about you is                                            20             1       either going to be sympathetic or supportive, so we             2       quickly saw that what we thought may be a good thing to             3       do would be criticised.  Whether it would be our             4       decision to go to Rome or not was criticised in certain             5       quarters.  Even at the time for us it was very important             6       to us.  So there was that element, and then there were             7       more sinister elements were starting to creep into the             8       reporting.             9           Firstly, the first really bad thing was an article            10       that was written in a Portuguese paper which was            11       entitled, "Pact of silence", and it was starting to            12       refer that there was some sort of sinister agreement            13       between us and our friends to cover up what had            14       happened, and I thought that was rather ludicrous,            15       considering that we were all acting under judicial            16       secrecy and couldn't speak about the details of the            17       event.  But that -- it was probably towards the end of            18       June 2007, and slowly deteriorated through July,            19       culminating in September 2007.            20   Q.  The real spate of offensive and objectionable material,            21       if I can be forgiven for using those epithets, starts in            22       September 2007 and runs on to January 2008, and we'll be            23       looking at those in a moment.            24           In paragraph 32, you make the general point that UK            25       press articles were often based on bits and pieces                                            21             1       picked up from Portuguese articles, transmuted from             2       supposition into fact; is that right?             3   A.  Yeah, absolutely.  And I think one of the articles that             4       springs to mind actually was a piece in a Portuguese             5       newspaper where somebody was talking to the prosecutor             6       and was asking what he thought had happened and there             7       was a quote saying he didn't know whether Madeleine was             8       alive or dead, and I think the following line was             9       "probably dead", and that translated into the front page            10       of the Daily Mirror with a photograph of Madeleine with            11       a headline, "She's dead", which we saw at 11 o'clock at            12       night, we were trying to go to bed.  Obviously that was            13       one of the most distressing headlines, it was presented            14       as if it's factual, and it was just taken from that            15       supposition, I don't know, probability.  It's            16       incredible.            17   Q.  One key event in this narrative is you becoming, if            18       I pronounce it right, arguido, under Portuguese law,            19       which occurred on 7 September 2007, and this is            20       paragraph 34 of your witness statement.  To be clear            21       about it, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong because you            22       know more about this than me, arguido does not mean            23       "suspect", it means "person of interest"; is that            24       correct?            25   A.  That's what we were advised was the closest correlation                                            22             1       or translation within UK law at the time, and I think it             2       is probably important to emphasise that as a witness in             3       Portugal at that time you were not entitled to any legal             4       representation.  So if the police wanted to ask any             5       question, which your answer may give incriminating             6       evidence, then they must declare you arguido, then you             7       were entitled to have a lawyer there.  And in many ways             8       you could argue that all parents of a missing child,             9       certainly those who would have been the last to see            10       them, could have to answer questions like that.  So            11       being labelled arguido was not necessarily such a bad            12       thing.            13           However, I will acknowledge that there were leaks by            14       elements of the investigation team which clearly were            15       trying to portray that there was strong evidence that            16       Madeleine was dead and that we were involved.            17   Q.  Maybe there are two points here.  The first point is the            18       obvious one that needs to be stated.  There isn't an            19       equivalent concept of arguido in English law?            20   A.  No.  And I think the aspect on that is we've never been            21       arrested, we've never been charged with anything.  We've            22       never stood trial.            23   Q.  Do you happen to know whether under Portuguese law they            24       have a category of suspect?            25   A.  I think it is loosely used, but you could have multiple                                            23             1       arguidos within any investigation, and at that time, the             2       title "arguido" stayed with those involved until the             3       file was closed.             4   Q.  Do you think, rightly or wrongly, the British press             5       somehow interpreted "arguido" as equivalent to             6       "suspect", which carried with it, therefore, its own             7       connotations?             8   A.  Yes.  I mean clearly the word was used that way almost             9       exclusively.            10   Q.  At this point we are in the late summer, obviously, or            11       early autumn of 2007.  If I can move you forward to            12       paragraph 39 of your statement.  You're making the point            13       that the story in terms of objective fact is beginning            14       to run dry and reporters now are thrashing around for            15       something new.            16   A.  I think it's probably worth just clarifying that within            17       ten days of being made arguidos, the prosecutor made an            18       announcement that all lines of inquiry, including the            19       abduction of Madeleine, were open and no charges were            20       being brought at that time, but that didn't stop the            21       continued reporting of inaccurate, untruthful and            22       incredibly damaging reports.            23   Q.  From the perspective of the newspaper and the sort of            24       economic calculation they may wish to conduct -- you            25       deal with this in paragraph 39 -- but you have evidence                                            24             1       that this story was, at least in the opinion of those             2       running one of the newspapers, boosting their             3       circulation figures.  Is that right?             4   A.  I think that's clear, and Peter Ellis testified that to             5       the Parliamentary Select Committee.             6   Q.  The specific tone of the articles changes in September             7       2007.  We're going to look at that particularly in             8       a moment.  In paragraph 40, however, you refer to one             9       piece in the Evening Standard, which is I think the very            10       day you were declared arguidos, 7 September 2007:            11           "Police believe mother killed Maddie."            12   A.  Mm.            13   Q.  Was that the first time that point was made so baldly            14       and so falsely?            15   A.  There's been so many headlines of similar gravity that            16       I can't tell you honestly whether that was the first            17       time.            18   MRS McCANN:  I think that may have been the first time it            19       was in a headline.  In August 2007, we were told by            20       a BBC journalist, in fact he stopped us and said, "Have            21       you seen what's getting reported?  They're saying            22       there's blood in the apartment, they're saying that you            23       were involved.  Madeleine's been killed and you were            24       involved."  So actually it was stirring up in August            25       2007, but I think the headlines like that became very                                            25             1       prominent once we were made arguidos.             2   Q.  Then you refer to two articles in the Daily Mail which,             3       unless I've missed something, we don't have available             4       today, but the first one published in September 2007 you             5       summarise in paragraph 41, the subheading:             6           "I pray the Portuguese police are careering down the             7       wrong track, but from the start a terrible nagging doubt             8       has refused to leave me."             9           That, for what it's worth, was corrected by another            10       piece as late as 4 May 2009, which you deal with in            11       paragraph 43; is that correct?            12   MR McCANN:  It is.  I should probably clarify that            13       paragraph 41 refers to Kate rather than myself, but yes,            14       that's correct.            15   Q.  In paragraph 46, you deal with a theme which you're not            16       the first to address, namely presence of photographers.            17       We know, of course, that you came home at a certain            18       point, I can't remember precisely when it was, but once            19       you're home, you then have photographers outside your            20       home.  Can you just tell us a little bit about that, and            21       in particular the impact that had on you?            22   A.  I think the first thing probably to say is it started            23       when we said we were leaving Portugal, which we'd            24       already told the police we were going to leave before we            25       were declared arguidos, and the journey to the airport                                            26             1       was one of the most terrifying experiences, I think,             2       anyone could have, where cars were coming across,             3       cutting in front, cameras, people hanging out of             4       windows, motorbike riders.  It was just dangerous,             5       frankly dangerous.             6           When we got back to our home in Rothley, again there             7       were tens of journalists -- we live in a cul de sac, at             8       the end of it -- camped outside our house, cameras,             9       helicopter crews following us.  We were hemmed in the            10       house for a couple of days before the police moved them            11       to the end of our drive.            12   Q.  Then you tell us that photographers were still banging            13       on car windows, even with one or more children in the            14       car; is that right?            15   MRS McCANN:  And they stayed there until December 2007.            16       That was only after we had help to get them removed, but            17       they were there every day, and they'd wait for Gerry to            18       go and they knew I'd have to come out of the house at            19       some point with the children.  It would be the same            20       photograph every day, we'd be in the car, myself and two            21       children, the photographers would either spring out from            22       behind a hedge to get a startled look that they could            23       attach "fragile", "furious", whatever they wanted to put            24       with the headline, but there were several occasions            25       where they would bang on the windows, sometimes with the                                            27             1       camera lenses, and Amelie said to me several times,             2       "Mummy, I'm scared."             3   MR McCANN:  I'd like to point out the twins at that time             4       were still only two and a half years old.  Very             5       frightened.             6   Q.  You deal with two further matters, perhaps less serious             7       than this, because what you've told us of course is             8       a plain breach of the code, that we may come to in due             9       course.            10           There was a photograph of you, Dr Gerald McCann, on            11       the golf course, which obviously is a private place, and            12       then the distortion of photographs of you, Dr Kate            13       McCann, to present, no doubt, a certain image.  Often            14       coupled with the adjectives "frail" or "fragile", which            15       you've told us about.            16           In terms of the effect on you, you described it, and            17       of course it will be obvious to us, but looking more            18       broadly, the effect on the continuing investigation,            19       which after all is your primary focus then, as it is            20       now, are you able to quantify that for us and describe            21       it?            22   A.  Well, I think from -- reputational aspects aside, the            23       distress that was caused to us was the clear message            24       that was going out nationally throughout Europe and            25       internationally was that there was very strong evidence                                            28             1       that our daughter was dead and that we were somehow             2       implicated in her disappearance, and we knew that if             3       people believed that, then there couldn't be             4       a meaningful search, and it was incredible.  And any             5       aspects of campaigning for a search with what happened             6       to us and how it was portrayed in the media meant we             7       were completely hamstrung in our ability to counter             8       anything.             9   MRS McCANN:  These were desperate times.  You know, we were            10       having to try and find our daughter ourselves.  We            11       needed all the help we could get, and we were faced            12       with -- I know we'll come on to headlines, but "Corpse            13       in the car"; I don't know how many times I read "Body            14       fluids in the car".  And it gets repeated that often, it            15       becomes fact.  There were no body fluids.  We            16       desperately wanted to shout out "It's not true, it's not            17       true", but when it's your voice against the powerful            18       media, it just doesn't have a weight.  We were            19       desperately shouting out internally "Please stop, what            20       are you doing?  We're trying to find our daughter and            21       you're stopping our chances of finding her".            22   MR McCANN:  The point being, which I alluded to earlier, is            23       that we were told in no uncertain terms that if we            24       disclosed anything publicly which we knew to be in the            25       judicial file, ie the results which had been shown to                                            29             1       us, which we knew were not what was being reported about             2       DNA, then we were threatened with a two-year             3       imprisonment for breaking judicial secrecy, so we were             4       being tried by the media and unable to defend ourselves             5       adequately.             6   Q.  You tell us in your statement a series of steps which             7       were taken to try and abate this flood.  Can I try and             8       summarise it in this way?  First of all, a meeting is             9       organised with the editors of the major UK tabloid            10       newspapers.  That's in September 2007, when a clear            11       message was put out to them, and you tell us that had a            12       transient effect.  It's paragraph 53 of your witness            13       statement.            14   A.  Sure.  I think there's two elements.  Within the first            15       week of being back, we had appointed solicitors,            16       Kingsley Napley, and Angus McBride, who is one of the            17       solicitors who represented us at that time, he thought            18       it was very important that he would -- we should try and            19       modify the content of the press articles, and he went            20       with Justine McGuinness, who was campaign manager at            21       that point, and met with all the editors from the major            22       newspapers and emphasised to them that it was his strong            23       belief that there was no evidence to support what they            24       were reporting.  But it seemed to have very little            25       effect.                                            30             1           In fact, I think Kingsley Napley then pressurised             2       Leicestershire police to write to the broadcasters and             3       editors, and there's a letter from Matt Baggott, who was             4       Chief Constable at that time, urging restraint and             5       saying there was very inaccurate reporting.             6           We organised another round of meetings with Angus             7       and Clarence, who then came back to work for us later on             8       in September 2007, and that was followed up with another             9       letter from the Chief Constable, I think on 17 October,            10       if my memory --            11   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  8 October.            12   A.  Thank you.  Failed.            13   MR JAY:  17 September, 8 October.            14   A.  And obviously these things were done because the            15       coverage was continuing such a bad way.            16   Q.  You identify the worst offenders, and we'll be looking            17       at this quite carefully in a moment, amongst the            18       Express Group newspapers, which included the Daily Star            19       and the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the            20       Sunday Star?            21   A.  Yes.            22   Q.  Did there come a point when warnings were given by your            23       lawyers in the context of possible claims in defamation,            24       by which I mean libel?            25   A.  Yes.  Kingsley Napley had written to the Express Group                                            31             1       twice, explicitly, telling them that they were on             2       notice, that we felt that the content of the articles             3       was libellous, and we reserved the right to take action.             4           Then I think what you see in paragraph 66 is             5       a series of articles produced in January 2008 over             6       a very short period of time, rehashing largely, but with             7       other things come on, and I think it's important to             8       emphasise we had met with Adam Tudor from Carter Ruck,             9       who is as you know a libel specialist, and we had talked            10       about legal action, which for us was always a last            11       resort.  We felt we had a more important battle to            12       fight, which was finding our daughter, but we felt that            13       it was our only course of action open to us at that            14       point that would stop it.            15   MRS McCANN:  And I think it's important to emphasise, again,            16       some of the headlines that we faced.  They were            17       incessant.  And they're not just slight inaccuracies.            18       I mean, "It was her blood in parents' hire car".            19       Totally untrue.            20   Q.  Let's look at some of these articles, please.  What I'm            21       going to do is invite your attention first of all to            22       GM2, which is a schedule you have prepared, with            23       directly underneath it articles in the Daily Express,            24       specifically.  These run from 27 September 2007 to            25       22 January 2008.  The ones you have specifically                                            32             1       identified in paragraph 66 of your witness statement we             2       can look at, but first of all, we can get the flavour of             3       some of the headlines.             4           9 October 2007:  "DNA puts parents in frame.             5       British experts insist their tests are valid".             6           17 October 2007:  "Parents' hire car hid a corpse.             7       It was under carpet in boot, say police".             8           Then "Priest: I was deceived".             9           I haven't counted them up, but there are probably            10       about 25 similar pieces running over a three or            11       four-month period.            12           Let's just look at some of them, if you don't mind.            13   MR McCANN:  Sure.            14   Q.  We're in GM2, and the first of them --            15   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  We're not intending to put these on            16       the website, are we, Mr Jay?            17   MR JAY:  Well, if there's a problem, we won't.  I didn't            18       understand there to be, but at the moment these are not            19       on any website, no.            20   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  No.  I just don't particularly want            21       to give greater prominence or currency to articles that            22       have caused enough distress in their time.            23   MR JAY:  Yes.            24   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  By all means refer to them and that            25       can be part of the evidence, but it seems to me that's                                            33             1       sufficient.             2           Are you content with that approach?             3   A.  Obviously the articles themselves have been pulled, but             4       they are -- their contents have been widely disseminated             5       through many blogs, as you're probably well aware, but             6       we have no issue with discussing the content.             7   MR JAY:  Yes.  I think the best thing to do, unless someone             8       says I should adopt a different course, is I'm not going             9       to ask for the articles to be put on the screen, but I'm            10       just going to refer to the articles and we can bring out            11       maybe one or two points.  If at any point you tell me            12       no, you don't want me to proceed down a particular            13       road --            14   A.  Sure.            15   Q.  -- of course I won't.  So I'll do this as quickly and as            16       lightly as I can, Dr McCann, just to give the flavour.            17           If you look, please, at the internal numbering, it's            18       page 10 of GM2.            19   A.  Yes.            20   Q.  There's an article:            21           "It was her blood in parents' hire car, new DNA            22       tests report".            23           The overall flavour or thrust of this article was            24       that there was DNA evidence which linked your daughter            25       with a hire car.  What do you say about that?  I'm sure                                            34             1       you have a lot to say about it, but in a nutshell --             2   A.  The first thing to say is it's simply untrue.             3       Madeleine's DNA was not uncovered from the hire car,             4       that's the first thing.             5   Q.  Yes.             6   A.  The inference from this is, and I think the public who             7       think that DNA is a very strong evidence in cases would             8       take this to mean, absolutely, that Madeleine was in the             9       hire car that we hired more than three weeks after she            10       disappeared.  It's incredible.            11   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Interestingly enough, what they're            12       doing is reporting a newspaper as saying that, so that's            13       how it comes out.  A Portuguese newspaper.            14   A.  Well, often you'll find that there would be something            15       down in the article.  They weren't published in the            16       prominence that they were in these papers.  And no way            17       of checking the source, which is a recurring theme.            18       These are all sources, unnamed sources in the original            19       articles.            20   MR JAY:  If we move, please, to page 15, the headline reads:            21           "Madeleine:  McCanns are main suspects, say police."            22           Was that correct?            23   A.  Well, the police weren't speaking to the media under            24       judicial law, and we haven't had any of the police            25       identified who have given these statements.  I would                                            35             1       like to know who they are.  Perhaps they could face             2       contempt of court proceedings.             3   Q.  Okay.  Page 17, this is another headline you refer to in             4       paragraph 66:             5           "Priest 'bans' Madeleine.  He takes down posters as             6       Praia da Luz" and then I think this should be open             7       inverted commas "wipes her from its memory."             8           What's the innuendo there?  It's pretty obvious.             9   A.  It is, and I think the key thing here is obviously that            10       the Church community in Praia da Luz were incredibly            11       supportive to Kate and I spiritually.            12   MRS McCANN:  And still are.            13   MR McCANN:  And at that point they continued to hold            14       a weekly vigil for Madeleine, so obviously saying that            15       the town and the Portuguese locals had turned their back            16       on us was a clear innuendo from this article, which            17       again was not true.            18   Q.  In GM3, if we can quickly navigate our way through that,            19       this is another schedule of articles; this time,            20       however, we're looking at the Daily Star and the            21       Daily Star Sunday.  There's a similar number of            22       articles, really.  No, it's more.  Maybe about 50 of            23       them.  What is similar is the broad dates, from            24       27 September 2007 to 22 January 2008.            25           Two of the articles you specifically referred to in                                            36             1       your evidence, we can just quickly alight on them.  Look             2       at page 117, please, Dr McCann.  An article in the             3       Daily Star on 26 November 2007:             4           "Maddie 'sold' by hard-up McCanns."             5           This is the article you do refer to, the selling             6       into white slavery allegation.  Probably you don't want             7       to dignify that with a comment?             8   A.  That's nothing short of disgusting.             9   MRS McCANN:  I think this same journalist, if memory serves            10       right, also said we stored her body in a freezer.            11       I mean, we just ...            12   Q.  The final one, I've read all of these, Dr McCann, last            13       night.  We could look at all of them.  These are            14       representative.            15   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Just to make the comment, there's            16       absolutely no source for that assertion in that article.            17   MR McCANN:  No.            18   MR JAY:  There's a generic reference to a bombshell new            19       police theory, but completely non-attributed.            20   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes.  Sorry.            21   MR JAY:  Probably entirely made up.            22           Page 132.  In capitals:            23           "She did die in hol [short for holiday probably]            24       flat; blood traces [in capitals] are Maddie's, car            25       fluids [again in capitals] are from corpse" and then                                            37             1       "-- cops: body had been moved."             2           And then there's a reference to a possible grilling             3       by the British police, they have sensational new             4       evidence.  Are you going to dignify this with a comment             5       or not?             6   A.  I mean, you can, I hope, understand why we felt we had             7       to take proceedings from the severity and consistency of             8       the allegations being made.             9   Q.  Can we deal now with the proceedings?  If you want me to            10       go further through the schedule, through the articles,            11       please let me know.  I detect you probably don't.  We            12       have enough of a flavour; is that right, Dr McCann?            13   A.  Mm.            14   Q.  But what happened next, your solicitors have become            15       involved, letters before action had been sent.  To pick            16       up the story at paragraph 68, you say that on 7 February            17       your solicitors were contacted by the Express, and they            18       proposed some sort of deal with you.  Can you tell us            19       about their proposal?            20   A.  It was pretty much said because we were arguidos, they            21       couldn't agree to our complaint, but they did suggest            22       that we did an interview with OK magazine, which we            23       found rather breath-taking.            24   Q.  Right.  It goes without saying that that offer was not            25       accepted and matters proceeded.  Paragraph 69, the                                            38             1       Express by now had taken expert advice and they now             2       indicated that their articles were defamatory; is that             3       right?             4   A.  Yes.             5   Q.  Could you give us a sense of the timescale here?  The             6       first offer from the Express was 7 February, this was             7       the Hello magazine offer, but when did the admission of             8       wrongdoing, as it were, come in?             9   A.  It did drag out a bit.  I can't give you the exact            10       dates.  I do have it on file.  But there was an            11       acknowledgment that they might be prepared to make an            12       apology and also consider damages.  We wanted to make            13       sure that those damages reflected the seriousness of            14       what they had published and it was -- to be honest, the            15       damages for us were a secondary consideration.  It was            16       more about getting a front page apology to send a clear            17       message that we wouldn't tolerate these ongoing            18       allegations in other newspapers either.            19   Q.  The statement in open court was read out on 19 March            20       2008.            21   A.  Mm.            22   Q.  £550,000 was paid to Madeleine's Fund, and there was            23       also an apology on the front page, is this right, both            24       of the Express and of the Star?  Or is it just the            25       Express?                                            39             1   A.  No, both.             2   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Express Newspapers, and given that             3       we've gone into it, it's probably sensible just to read             4       that:             5           "In addition to the allegations referred to above,             6       the Daily Star published further articles under the             7       headlines which sought to allege that Mr and Mrs McCann             8       had sold their daughter in order to ease their financial             9       burdens.  A further article alleged that Mr and            10       Mrs McCann were involved in swinging or wife swapping.            11       As the defendant now acknowledges, all of these            12       allegations were and remain entirely untrue.  In            13       particular, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest            14       that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of            15       their daughter, they were involved in any sort of            16       cover-up and there was no basis for Express Newspapers            17       to allege otherwise.            18           "Equally, the allegations that Mr and Mrs McCann may            19       have sold Madeleine or were involved in swinging or wife            20       swapping were entirely baseless.  Naturally the repeated            21       publication of these utterly false and defamatory            22       allegations have caused untold distress to Mr and            23       Mrs McCann.  Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of            24       a more serious allegation."            25           That just provides some context.                                            40             1   A.  Thank you.             2   MR JAY:  What may be worthy of consideration though is the             3       possible rapidity of change of stance.  On the one hand,             4       they were maintaining their articles, they get leading             5       counsel's advice, then all of a sudden they say it's all             6       entirely wrong and maybe it's worth a consideration how             7       and why that volte face occurs.             8   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Could you tell me this.  They             9       presumably published something as well.  Where was it            10       published?            11   A.  The apologies?            12   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes.            13   A.  They were on the front page.  We insisted.  And we would            14       have gone to court to get that.            15   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Do we have that?            16   MR JAY:  I don't think we have the text of the apologies on            17       the front page, do we?            18   A.  Not the full apology.            19   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  All right.            20   MR JAY:  We can look at those, if necessary.            21           You deal with the issue of exemplary damages,            22       punitive damages in paragraph 71.            23   A.  Yes.            24   Q.  But you decided in the end not to pursue those; is that            25       correct?                                            41             1   A.  It is.  We were told that we had, after taking counsel's             2       advice, that we would be very likely to be successful in             3       such a claim, and my understanding of that was that             4       there would be a very strong argument that Express Group             5       Newspapers knew that the allegations, or many of them,             6       were unfounded or certainly couldn't prove any of them,             7       and despite the steps we had taken from September 2007             8       through to issuing proceedings made it very clear there             9       was no evidence to back it up, that we could only assume            10       they were acting for profit.            11   Q.  After these matters -- we're now in March of 2008 -- the            12       answer to the question may be fairly obvious, but were            13       there any further objectionable articles in the British            14       press?            15   A.  There was certainly a dramatic sea change within Express            16       Group Newspapers and I think largely the coverage has            17       been much more responsible and balanced.  It doesn't            18       mean that there hasn't been articles published which are            19       untruthful.  They may not be libellous or defamatory,            20       some of them, and we've had to have certain articles            21       pulled, but there was a clear change.  With hindsight,            22       I wish we'd taken action earlier.            23   Q.  In paragraph 76, you deal with related litigation            24       involving your friends, I believe, who were with you on            25       holiday.  Can I take this point quite shortly, that they                                            42             1       too recovered damages?             2   A.  Yes.             3   Q.  I think in total the amount was £375,000.             4   A.  That's correct.             5   Q.  But so it's clear, I've been asked to draw this from             6       you, that the defendant to the proceedings brought by             7       your friends was again Express Newspapers?             8   A.  That's correcting.             9   Q.  Or their publishers.  The Sun reported it, although the            10       Sun themselves, to be absolutely clear, were not the            11       defendants, they hadn't defamed you.  They reported            12       those settlements, I'm told, at page 25, and there were            13       similar reports in the Daily Mirror.  But so there's no            14       doubt about it, the Sun and the Daily Mirror are not the            15       defamers.  They are reporting what's happened in            16       relation to proceedings brought by other organs of the            17       press.            18           Paragraph 78 to 80, Associated Newspapers, please.            19       You made a further libel complaint in July of 2008 in            20       relation to coverage in the Daily Mail and the Evening            21       Standard.  Can we be clear which articles these relate            22       to, since you don't specify it in paragraph 79?  Do            23       I have this right?  Are you referring back to the            24       article at paragraph 40 of your witness statement,            25       Dr McCann?                                            43             1   A.  There had been a large number of articles, similar tone             2       to the ones that we had complained of previously, so it             3       was more again about DNA, blood, suspects, Madeleine             4       being killed, et cetera, rather than anything else.             5       Paragraph 40 --             6   Q.  You identify one article in the Evening Standard             7       published on 7 September 2007.             8   A.  Sure.  There were many similar articles like that,             9       particularly in the Evening Standard at that time.            10   MRS McCANN:  The corpse in the car was the Evening Standard,            11       I think.            12   Q.  In a nutshell, what was the outcome of these libel            13       proceedings?            14   MR McCANN:  We did settle.  They paid damages and there was            15       an apology published in the Evening Standard.  The            16       Daily Mail did not publish an apology.            17   Q.  One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought            18       with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that            19       correct?            20   A.  Yes.  I think it's very important, given the scale of            21       the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our            22       decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and            23       I think that's very important.  It was a last resort.            24       And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not            25       believe we would have had the resource to go down that                                            44             1       path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.             2   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  This is going to be your choice.  It             3       won't happen to anybody else, but it will be your             4       choice.  If you'd like a break for five minutes, we'll             5       have it.  If you prefer to carry on, we'll carry on.             6   A.  I'm happy to carry on.             7   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Right.  I ought to say, I've             8       confirmed it with the shorthand writer.             9   MR JAY:  There's a fair bit more, I don't want to rush this,            10       but we'll see how we get on.            11           Paragraph 82, the first anniversary.  You explain            12       that you agreed to an interview with Hello magazine.            13       Just tell us a bit, please, about why you did that?            14   A.  I think the first thing to say, it was very specific and            15       we had -- clearly we've talked about our prime            16       objective, which is finding Madeleine, and what we've            17       hoped is that some good would come out of what happened            18       to us.  And one of the things, through our own research            19       and having been to the National Centre for Missing and            20       Exploited Children in the USA, was to talk about            21       AMBER Alert, and we decided that we would start            22       campaigning for a joined-up alert system for missing            23       children within Europe, particularly on the continent of            24       Europe.            25           For that very specific reason, because Hello is                                            45             1       distributed, I think, in 14 European countries, they did             2       approach us and said that they would promote the             3       campaign, and at the time we were lobbying MEPs to sign             4       declarations supporting an alert system, so we agreed to             5       do an interview on that basis, which, just for clarity,             6       of course, we were not paid for.             7   MRS McCANN:  Many of the media outlets didn't really want to             8       run with the work we were doing for the child rescue             9       alert, which in itself is disappointing because it is            10       important but obviously it's not as exciting, or            11       whatever the word is, when it comes to headlines and            12       stories.  So we saw this as an opportunity of improving            13       things for the greater good really.            14   Q.  One rival however wasn't best pleased and you touch on            15       this in paragraph 84.  Maybe this is quite            16       understandable, but tell us a little bit about the call            17       you received from the then editor of the            18       News of the World.            19   MR McCANN:  I think it would be fair to say that Mr Myler            20       was irate when he learned of the publication which            21       happened and was berating us for not doing an interview            22       with the News of the World and told us how supportive            23       the newspaper had been, the news and rewards, and a time            24       of stress for us on the first anniversary, where we were            25       actually launching a new campaign, we were still                                            46             1       arguidos at the time, a new call number for people to             2       come forward so we could continue the search for our             3       daughter, and we were interacting with the media to get             4       that message out.             5           He basically beat us into submission, verbally, and             6       we agreed to do an interview the day after.             7   MRS McCANN:  Can I just emphasise, this is at an extremely             8       stressful time.  It was the run-up to one year of not             9       having our daughter with us.  Emotionally as well as            10       logistically, everything we were trying to do, it was            11       incredibly hard.  So to get a call like this, and you            12       actually almost feel guilty, you know, because they're            13       saying, "We helped you, we got a reward", and you almost            14       say, "I'm sorry", and it's almost like somebody won't            15       help you unless you give something back.            16   MR McCANN:  And of course we were trying to make the            17       distinction between interacting with the media for what            18       we thought was something helpful for the search, and            19       simply doing an interview, which we knew would focus on            20       the human interest aspects and not necessarily the            21       search for Madeleine.            22   Q.  The News of the World come into the narrative a few            23       months later, as you rightly say at paragraph 86.  It            24       may be that Dr Kate McCann would like to deal with this,            25       but I'm in your hands.  Out of the blue, 14 September                                            47             1       2008, transcripts from your personal diary appear or             2       purport to appear in the News of the World.  Can you             3       tell us a bit about that, please?             4   MRS McCANN:  You're right, this was totally out of the blue.             5       It was Sunday lunchtime, we'd just got back from church             6       and I got the text message from Gail, who works in the             7       nursery where Madeleine, Sean and Amelie went, and it             8       just said, "Saw your diary in the newspapers.             9       Heartbreaking.  I hope you're all right." And it was            10       totally out of the blue, and I had that horrible panicky            11       feeling, confusion and, you know, what's she on about?            12       I didn't have a clue.  We rapidly found out, it was the            13       News of the World.  I went and looked at it online,            14       which was five pages, including the front page.  I got            15       my original handwritten copy of my diary out and sat            16       there, and it was lifted in its entirety and put in the            17       newspaper without my knowledge.  Apart from the odd            18       word, which was -- I think it was a translational error,            19       that had obviously been taken -- translated into            20       Portuguese, and then a Portuguese copy had then been            21       translated back to English, which was slightly different            22       from the original, but pretty verbatim and it had been            23       put there.            24           I felt totally violated.  I'd written these words            25       and thoughts at the most desperate time in my life, most                                            48             1       people won't have to experience that, and it was my only             2       way of communicating with Madeleine, and for me, you             3       know, there was absolutely no respect shown for me as             4       a grieving mother or as a human being or for my             5       daughter, and it made me feel very vulnerable and small             6       and I just couldn't believe it.             7           It didn't stop there.  It's not just a one-day             8       thing.  That whole week was incredibly traumatic and             9       every time I thought about it, I just couldn't believe            10       the injustice.  I actually just recently read through my            11       diary entries at that point at that week and I talk            12       about climbing into a hole and not coming out because            13       I just felt so worthless that we'd been treated like            14       this.            15   Q.  Can we be clear as to the provenance of the diary.  You            16       mentioned a Portuguese translation, which may be a clear            17       indication of provenance but perhaps I can take this            18       quite shortly, that the judicial or police authorities            19       in Portugal had obtained or had seized a copy of your            20       diary, or perhaps it was the original, in August 2007;            21       is that right?            22   MRS McCANN:  Yes, it was --            23   Q.  We're talking about a hard copy, manuscript document?            24   MRS McCANN:  It was just handwritten.  They'd come and said            25       they had taken clothes from the villa and we had to                                            49             1       leave, and when we got back later that day, they said             2       they'd also taken my diaries as well, which I have to             3       say was a little bit of a shock, but it did come back to             4       me about 24, 48 hours later, so I obtained the original             5       copy.  Obviously, photocopies were taken during that             6       period.             7   Q.  Yes.  It wasn't clear from your statement, but it now             8       is.  It was within quite a short space of time that the             9       original was returned to you, you believe by order of            10       a Portuguese judge, so it sounds as if the initial            11       seizure had been a step too far, or whatever.  But            12       a copy of the original must have been taken by someone,            13       presumably someone within the Portuguese police or            14       judicial authorities; is that correct?            15   MR McCANN:  I think it's clear that the police had copied            16       the journal and had it translated, and of course at the            17       time we didn't understand why the journal could have            18       been relevant because Kate only started keeping it            19       a couple of weeks after Madeleine was taken, so we            20       didn't know there was a copy until the file was released            21       the following summer, but within the file, the            22       Portuguese judicial file, there is an order from the            23       judge, who's read the translation and says, "This is of            24       no interest to the investigation, it's Kate's personal            25       thoughts and should not ..." and he actually used the                                            50             1       word "violation".             2   MRS McCANN:  He used the word "violation".  He said use of             3       which would be a violation of its author.             4   MR McCANN:  And ordered that any copies be destroyed.             5   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  And further investigation of that has             6       revealed, if anything?  To unpick where this came from?             7   MR McCANN:  I would like further investigation as to where             8       it came from.             9   MRS McCANN:  An investigation.            10   MR McCANN:  Because clearly it was an illegal copy.            11   MR JAY:  I think what it relevant, and I think this has            12       already come out from Dr Kate McCann's evidence, is that            13       one or two things were lost in the translation, or            14       changed, which indicates that the piece in the            15       News of the World was a translation from the Portuguese.            16   MR McCANN:  Yes.            17   Q.  Because had it been precisely verbatim, it might have            18       led us --            19   MRS McCANN:  Very subtle changes but things like where            20       I said I was "really upset", it says I was "fed up".  It            21       does change the meaning slightly.            22   Q.  It may be we can investigate that or it may be that we            23       will receive an admission as to --            24   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  I'd like to know whether there is a            25       byline.                                            51             1   MRS McCANN:  It would be nice to know the source.             2   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Is there a byline on the article?             3   MR JAY:  It says "in her own words".             4   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes, yes, yes, I understand that, but             5       is there a reporter's name associated with it?             6   MR JAY:  Pardon me, yes, there is.             7   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  There you are, there's a potential             8       line of inquiry.             9   MR JAY:  It's a point I'd like to think can be dealt with            10       very quickly by someone.  It can be confirmed, because            11       it's pointless denying it really.  There's only one            12       reasonable inference here.            13           You do refer in paragraph 93 to a conversation which            14       was reported to you from Clarence with the deputy editor            15       of the News of the World as he then was, Mr Ian            16       Edmondson.  Can you tell us a little bit about that?            17   MR McCANN:  I think the first thing to say is that Clarence            18       would speak to Ian Edmondson, who was deputy editor and            19       was probably responsible for most of the stories about            20       Madeleine at that time.  So Clarence spoke to Ian on            21       a regular basis and one or two of the News of the World            22       reporters.  Clarence had mentioned it to me, just saying            23       that the News of the World had indicated that they would            24       do a supportive story, mainly attacking the Portuguese            25       police, but generally supportive.  That was it.  There                                            52             1       was no mention of having a copy of Kate's diary, no             2       mention that they were intending to publish it verbatim.             3           So as Kate has already said, it was a complete shock             4       when we heard that it was printed.             5   Q.  Yes.  They have breached a number of tortious             6       obligations which it's not necessary to spell out.  It             7       culminated in a complaint, the possibility of             8       litigation, but that was avoided by an apology from the             9       News of the World and the payment of a further donation            10       to the fund for the search for Madeleine; is that            11       correct?            12   A.  Mm.            13   Q.  I'm just going to touch upon the section continuing the            14       relationship with the press.  I am not going to cover            15       paragraph 97 unless I'm asked to specifically.  If you            16       wish me to I will, but I wasn't minded to.  I was going            17       to ask you though about paragraph 100.            18   A.  I mean, I think 97's probably important.            19   Q.  Okay, well tell us about it in your own words.            20   A.  For one of the stories that was not published and isn't            21       libellous, not defamatory, but we were alerted to it and            22       it was done by a freelance journalist who has written            23       many inaccurate stories, and had submitted it, I think            24       it was to the People, if I'm right, the People on            25       Sunday, and the editor or the deputy editor called                                            53             1       Clarence just to say they were running this, this was on             2       the evening of the Saturday, and Clarence phoned us and             3       it was complete nonsense, but it was basically saying             4       that we were undergoing IVF treatment with a view to             5       getting a new baby to replace Madeleine.             6   MRS McCANN:  I think the important thing, this demonstrates             7       it's not just the articles that have been published that             8       have been a problem.  We've had many weekends destroyed             9       because we've had to try and stop articles like this            10       from actually ending up in the press.  And weekends are            11       important for Gerry, that's our only family time.  We've            12       had to involve lawyers on --            13   MR McCANN:  Friday nights.  Another example there which            14       I don't think is in our evidence, but again it            15       transpired on a Friday evening, is journalists had gone            16       to speak to my mum, I think they said even -- you know,            17       Clarence said it was okay and my mum let them in and            18       a lady journalist took a copy of an unpublished            19       photograph of Kate, myself and Madeleine when we lived            20       in Amsterdam that was very special to us and they were            21       going to publish it in a Scottish newspaper on the            22       Sunday and we had to involve Adam and Isabel from            23       Carter Ruck to get that stopped.            24           I think the only way we managed to get a very            25       stroppy interaction with the editor was that we own the                                            54             1       copyright of the picture and they were not in the least             2       apologetic.             3   MRS McCANN:  They were fighting it, actually, saying, "We've             4       got the picture".  It was like, "It's our daughter."             5       Incredible.             6   MR McCANN:  The impact that these things have in what should             7       be a little bit of respite, but there have been several             8       occasions where we've gone behind the scenes at the             9       eleventh hour.            10   Q.  Thank you.  Then paragraph 100, you deal with a piece in            11       the Daily Mail, quite recently, July of this year, about            12       an alleged reported sighting in India.  What are your            13       feelings about that, please?            14   A.  It's probably one of the most recent examples of what            15       I would say is the contempt for Madeleine and her            16       safety.  There was no check.  This sighting had been            17       reported to the police, I think we were actually on            18       holiday.  They emailed us a photograph and we quickly            19       indicated that it was not Madeleine, and as far as we            20       were concerned, it was dealt with.  And then a day or            21       two later, it's published and the newspaper on that            22       occasion have chosen to publish it and they may want to            23       justify why, but from our point of view, they don't know            24       whether it's true, they haven't contacted us, and            25       additionally we have the issue that if this really was                                            55             1       a genuine sighting of Madeleine, then her captors may be             2       alerted and move her.             3           So the story has precedence over the safety of our             4       child.  And that's clear.  And that has been done by,             5       I think, every single newspaper, as well as similar             6       instances of amateur sleuthing and details about the             7       investigation which should only be known to the             8       witnesses and the potential to contaminate evidence by             9       having read something that you shouldn't really know            10       about, and all of the newspapers and broadcasters have            11       been guilty of it.            12   Q.  Thank you.  Out of sequence, I'm then going to come back            13       to the PCC because it's a more general point, I think,            14       under the heading "Kate's book", paragraph 111.  It may            15       be in your hands as to which of you would like to deal            16       with this piece of evidence.            17   A.  Sure.            18   Q.  Book published in May of 2011, so we're at the fourth            19       anniversary, it was to mark that, to coincide with that.            20       Obviously a difficult decision.  Do you want to tell us            21       a little bit about that?            22   MRS McCANN:  You're right, it was a very difficult decision            23       for obvious reasons, for all the reasons we've been            24       discussing.  But ultimately we are responsible for            25       conducting and funding the search to find our daughter.                                            56             1   Q.  Yes.             2   MRS McCANN:  And ultimately I had to make the decision, we             3       needed to raise money, I knew this was something that             4       I could do that could maintain the search and possibly             5       help us find our daughter, and that's why I took the             6       decision then to do it.  Obviously in the ideal world,             7       you wouldn't choose to do anything like that.             8   Q.  There was serialisation of your book in two             9       News International titles, the Sun and the Sunday Times?            10   MR McCANN:  Yes.            11   Q.  You talk about a meeting with Rebekah Brooks, which led            12       to a review of your case, a formal review.  Just to            13       assist us a little bit with that, can you recall when            14       that was?            15   A.  I think it's probably worth just elaborating a little            16       bit because it's quite a complex decision-making process            17       in terms of agreeing to serialise the book.            18           News International actually bid for the rights to            19       the book, along with Harper Collins, and one of their            20       pitches was the fact that they would serialise the book            21       across all of their titles, and we were somewhat            22       horrified at the prospect of that, given the way we'd            23       been treated in the past, and the deal was actually done            24       with the publishers, Transworld, that excluded            25       serialisation.                                            57             1           Now, we were subsequently approached by             2       News International and Associated to serialise the book,             3       and after much deliberation, we had a couple of meetings             4       with the general manager and -- Will Lewis and             5       Rebekah Brooks and others, and what swung the decision             6       to serialise was News International committed to backing             7       the campaign and the search for Madeleine.  And that             8       passed our test of how it could help, and we had been             9       lobbying behind the scenes for two and a half years,            10       with successive Home Secretaries, to try and get            11       a review of Madeleine's case, and we felt that having            12       News International helping in that, and ultimately where            13       I think the media have helped in this situation, of            14       galvanising the public, having them reengaged with us            15       and Madeleine, is what tipped the balance.            16   Q.  Her intervention was successful?            17   A.  It was.            18   Q.  There may not be a module three issue.            19   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes.            20   MR JAY:  It's right to say in terms of the sequence of            21       events, I think the Prime Minister was involved just            22       a bit before, and then the Home Office the day after?            23   A.  Yes, I think --            24   Q.  The same day announced --            25   A.  We had written to the Home Secretary saying that we'd be                                            58             1       launching the book, and asking her to update us on where             2       they had got, and we got one letter which really didn't             3       say very much, and then we did the open letter to the             4       Prime Minister, which was published on the front page of             5       the Sun.             6   Q.  Turn back to the issue of the involvement of the PCC.             7           This is covered both in your witness statement and             8       in evidence you gave, Dr Gerald McCann, to the Culture,             9       Media and Sports Select Committee in 2009, and then it            10       was picked up in the second report, I think, of that            11       committee.  There's a whole section of the report that            12       goes to that issue.            13           The position I think is -- I'm back in your            14       statement, paragraph 101 -- the PCC's position is that            15       at an early stage they put a message out that they were            16       ready, willing and able to assist you.  This was in May            17       2007.  Do you follow me?            18   A.  Yes.            19   Q.  I think your evidence is, well, you never got that            20       message.  Was that right?            21   A.  If I did, it was lost in the time when we were obviously            22       dealing with lots of things, and I would say probably            23       similar to Mrs Gascoigne who gave evidence earlier this            24       morning, that I was only vaguely aware of the PCC at            25       that time.                                            59             1   Q.  In paragraph 103 you say:             2           "We have on a number of occasions had cause to             3       contact the PCC.  The PCC was extremely helpful in             4       dealing with the unwanted intrusion into the privacy of             5       our twins."             6           Are you referring there to the business with the             7       paparazzi taking photographs when you're back in the             8       United Kingdom?             9   A.  Yes.            10   MRS McCANN:  That's right.            11   MR McCANN:  I think we had also indicated earlier in the            12       summer of 2007 that although we tacitly agreed to having            13       photographs of us taken in Praia da Luz, largely because            14       we felt that we couldn't stop it, particularly with            15       international media being there, that as the situation            16       dragged on over months, we didn't want continued            17       photographs of Sean and Amelie to be published, and we            18       were obviously concerned at the time, they were just 2,            19       but as they got older, they could be recognised.  So            20       there was an agreement -- and I can't remember exactly            21       if the PCC were involved in that, but we asked the media            22       not to publish photographs of Sean and Amelie, and that            23       was adhered to with pixelation up until we arrived back            24       in the UK and then it went out the window again.            25   Q.  In terms of the PCC assisting you in relation to the                                            60             1       wider issue of inaccurate, unfair and sensationalist             2       reporting, it may well be that there isn't a factual             3       dispute between you and the PCC at that time, of course,             4       speaking through Sir Christopher Meyer.  If you kindly             5       look under tab 9, Dr McCann, you'll see relevant             6       extracts from the report of the Culture, Media and             7       Sports Select Committee published on 9 February 2010.             8       I invite your attention -- the pagination is working --             9       on the top right-hand side of each page, to page 87.            10   A.  Yes.            11   Q.  You should find a heading, "The role of the PCC",            12       I hope, and then paragraph 354.  There we deal with the            13       message which they say they gave to you and you've told            14       us really, well, you don't recollect it, and of course            15       a lot was going on, but there was a meeting, and this is            16       355, on 13 July 2007 --            17   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  That was just accidental.            18   MR JAY:  Yes.            19           The general thrust of what you were told by            20       Sir Christopher Meyer during the course of an informal            21       conversation, is this correct, is that if you wanted to            22       deal with the issue of libel, well, then the route was            23       legal recourse, legal action.  But if you wanted to deal            24       with it in some other way, then the PCC might be able to            25       help?                                            61             1   A.  Yes.             2   Q.  Does that capture the sense of that meeting?             3   A.  It's probably fair to put in there that I had a number             4       of conversations with Sir Christopher, primarily because             5       we became friendly with his wife, Lady Catherine,             6       through her work with PACT, so on that first occasion             7       I met Sir Christopher and he broadly asked, "How are the             8       media treating you?" and we were very open and at that             9       point we said, "Considering the interest, not too bad",            10       and we didn't really have too much in the way of            11       specific complaints.            12           I did have further informal conversations and they            13       also dealt with correspondence from Kingsley Napley over            14       the period, but the gist of the conversations, and most            15       of my dialogue with him, informal rather than written,            16       was that we agreed with our legal advice and we took the            17       best legal advice we could get, that the way to stop            18       this was to take legal action and not to go to the PCC,            19       and I think Sir Christopher agreed with that.            20   Q.  That's a fair summary, Dr McCann.  It's what the            21       committee think as well, although Paul Dacre expressed            22       disappointment that you didn't make a formal complaint            23       to the PCC, although Sir Christopher disagreed with            24       Paul Dacre so we have two views --            25   A.  I think the ultimate thing was we discussed a course of                                            62             1       action and our advice, which was given in no uncertain             2       terms, this is legal advice, was that the PCC were not             3       fit to deal with the accusations, the nature of them,             4       the number of them and the severity.             5   Q.  The Inquiry will note, but it's not necessary for me to             6       read it out, the conclusions of the Select Committee on             7       these issues.  They start at paragraph 364 and 365 in             8       bold.  And the direct criticism is made by the Select             9       Committee of the PCC that the press were beginning to            10       ignore the requirement of the code and the PCC remained            11       silent.            12           Then under the heading "Lessons learnt", they review            13       your case.  They rightly point out that this was a very            14       unusual case.  They state that the coverage was            15       "freakish", and then their conclusions are set out at            16       paragraphs 373 and 375.            17           Perhaps I should read those out?            18   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  The word "freakish" is the committee            19       saying it's far from clear that the McCann coverage was            20       really so freakish.            21   MR JAY:  Paragraph 373:            22           "The newspaper industry's assertion that the McCann            23       case is a one-off event shows that it is in denial about            24       the scale and gravity of what went wrong and about the            25       need to learn from those mistakes.  In any other                                            63             1       industry suffering such a collective breakdown, as for             2       example in the banking sector now, any regulator worth             3       its salt would have instigated an inquiry.  The press             4       indeed would have been clamouring for it to do so.  It's             5       an indictment on the PCC's record that it signally             6       failed to do so.             7           "The industry's words and actions suggest a desire             8       to bury the affair without confronting its serious             9       implications, the kind of avoidance which newspapers            10       would criticise mercilessly and rightly if it occurred            11       in any other part of society.  The PCC, by failing to            12       take firm action, let slip an opportunity to prevent or            13       at least mitigate some of the most damaging aspects of            14       this episode and in so doing lent credence to the view            15       that it lacks teeth and is slow to challenge the            16       newspaper industry."            17           Is there anything you wish to add or subtract from            18       that?            19   A.  I think I would agree with it, and it's probably for            20       others to decide whether the PCC could have changed it.            21       I think that's a moot point.            22   Q.  Can I deal now with some general points, including the            23       four general points you made at the start?  But before            24       I deal with those four points, I'm back to your witness            25       statement at paragraph 116.                                            64             1           You refer to the or a culture change which is             2       required.  May I invite you, please, to put that in your             3       own words, both to identify the existing culture and             4       then the change which you think is required?             5   A.  I think we can speak with experience about how powerful             6       the media are, and how much damage they can do.  We've             7       already said how many good things that they have done as             8       well, so there is power, there is no doubt about it.             9       But what we see on a daily basis are front page tabloid            10       headlines in particular, sometimes followed by a clamour            11       with 24-hour news channels and Internet and a blurring            12       of the media, of stories which appear to have no factual            13       basis, or exaggerated, or distorted.            14           You've heard about several of hundreds that were            15       written about us, but we see them, I walk into the shop            16       in the hospital every day and I see front page            17       headlines, whether it's about Chris Jefferies who is            18       going to give evidence, or contestants on the X Factor,            19       and I think information has been written and lives are            20       being harmed by these stories, and something has to            21       change.  A commercial imperative is not acceptable.            22   Q.  Thank you.  The four specific headings you've given us,            23       in one sense you've largely covered these but it's            24       helpful if we can bring the strands together.            25           The first is libel.  Might it be said, and can                                            65             1       I just invite you to deal with this, well, this in fact             2       is an example, your case, of the system working to the             3       extent that you decide at a certain point that enough is             4       enough.  Obviously as professional people you're not             5       going to put your house on the line to fund legal             6       action, but conditional fee arrangements were available,             7       you took advantage of that.             8           Within a reasonably swift timeframe, and it's for             9       others to decide whether it was quick enough or            10       whatever, the position of Express Newspapers changes,            11       they admit liability, they make a statement in open            12       court, they pay £550,000, which in the scale of things            13       is a significant amount of money with modern libel            14       awards, and there's a front-page apology.  Is that an            15       example of the system working or do you have a different            16       take on what I've just said?            17   A.  I think it is an example of the system working in part,            18       however we would much rather we weren't awarded any            19       damages and the stories had not been published, and            20       I think it's very important to emphasise that we have            21       experienced long-lasting damage as a result of the            22       headlines and the media coverage, including recent trips            23       to Holland and Spain where our taxi driver said, "Oh,            24       you're the parents who are accused of killing your own            25       daughter, what happened?" and secondly in Spain where                                            66             1       they showed a film that supposedly had us showing             2       tablets that were tranquillisers that we'd supposedly             3       given to children, stated as virtually fact.             4           So although we've worked incredibly hard to change             5       things in the UK, the damage is more widespread.             6           So the money is only for me -- and I understand that             7       the costs may be more of a deterrent than the damages,             8       per se, but it's only a partial compensation, and once             9       it's there, yes, the apology goes part of the way, but            10       as we've seen, often the reporting is much wider than            11       the original offending outlet, and the damage is            12       long-lasting.            13           And if you go on the Internet now, which our nearly            14       7-year-old twins will be doing, most of these            15       allegations are still there and we will have to continue            16       dealing with them going forward.            17   Q.  You make two points there, I think, Dr McCann.  The            18       first is the point damages are never proper recompense,            19       and it's right, the judges recognise that, whether it's            20       a reputation case or personal injuries case, the money            21       can never provide reparation.            22           The particular point in your case is there's an            23       international dimension and whatever happens in the            24       United Kingdom in terms of statements in open court,            25       they're not going to carry any mileage or impact outside                                            67             1       this jurisdiction.             2   A.  No.             3   Q.  Hence your experiences in Spain and the Netherlands.             4   A.  Correct.             5   Q.  That's a helpful observation.  What about your second             6       heading, which was privacy laws?  Could you help us             7       a bit more with that, please?             8   A.  Yeah.  I think it's something obviously we probably             9       hadn't thought too much about before we found ourselves            10       in the situation that we are.  You take your anonymity            11       for granted.  What I find disturbing, clearly, when            12       you're being followed, you're being put in danger by            13       either reporters' or photographers' behaviour and            14       secondly I think it is probably an anomaly within the            15       legal system that a commercial organisation can take            16       a photograph of you, use it in their product, which they            17       sell and make a profit without your consent, and I think            18       that should be remedied.            19           I think if I'm here, I know I'm in public, I'm            20       giving evidence, I understand that images will be used,            21       I fully understand that and I'm implicitly consenting to            22       it, but whether it's us going for a run or driving out            23       of our front drive, and particularly with children,            24       I don't think it should be allowed.  I think you should            25       not be allowed to publish photographs of private                                            68             1       individuals going about their private business without             2       their explicit consent, signed.             3   Q.  The existing PCC Editors' Code speaks of either             4       a private place or a public place where there's             5       a reasonable expectation of privacy.  I think your             6       evidence is suggesting that that latter concept is quite             7       a difficult one to understand and in particular to             8       apply.             9   A.  Mm-hm.            10   Q.  So that indeed further thought need be given to that.            11           The third issue we may or may not have brought out            12       adequately but please expand it if you wish to.            13       Contempt for the judicial process, namely the secrecy            14       implications of the Portuguese law, I think, and for            15       your child's safety.            16   A.  Yes.            17   Q.  You have addressed that issue, but is there anything you            18       would like to expand, bring any strands together?            19   A.  Yes, it wouldn't be explicit to judicial secrecy in            20       Portugal, and by judicial I meant the whole process            21       which in Portugal is obviously overseen by a judge.  So            22       you have information.  We were told we were under            23       judicial secrecy not to give details of events.  What            24       became very apparent was, you know, the media were            25       trying to create a timeline of what happened, and we had                                            69             1       obviously created a timeline and given it to the police             2       and tried to narrow down to the closest minutes when we             3       think Madeleine was taken to help the investigation.             4           But when that information goes into the public             5       domain and the abductor shouldn't know it, or the only             6       person who should know it were the people who were             7       there, then that's a concern.  It can contaminate             8       evidence.  You could incriminate yourself by knowing             9       something that you shouldn't have known.            10           So that's the first process, and I think clearly, as            11       again I'm not a lawyer and I may be speaking out of            12       turn, but it's probably clear when there is a court case            13       on in the United Kingdom, about what's to be reported            14       and what not, and the police are very careful about            15       which information they give to the media in this            16       country, but for me there was contempt about that whole            17       investigative process.  There was no regard for the            18       outcome.  It was much more important for the media            19       outlets to have the detail or perhaps to have the            20       contradictions, and the salacious aspects that followed            21       it.            22           And then the point about Madeleine has never been            23       raised, I think, before, and clearly every outlet,            24       I think, has been guilty of this, about reporting            25       sightings, suspicious people, without giving it to the                                            70             1       proper authorities.  And that is of grave concern, and             2       obviously our concern and focus is Madeleine, but it             3       applies to other cases as well.             4   Q.  Your fourth heading is quite a broad one: acceptable             5       standards.             6   A.  Yes.  I did have a quick look at the National Union of             7       Journalist's submission and there are standards, but             8       there are no penalties for not sticking to them, and             9       whatever your profession is, particularly in this            10       country, then there is fairly strong regulation which we            11       have to abide to, and I have seen no individual            12       journalist or editor brought to account over the            13       stories, be it within Express Newspapers Group or            14       Associated or any of the other groups and I think if            15       there are repeated offenders, then they should lose            16       their privilege of practising as a journalist.            17   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Quite difficult, that.  I understand            18       exactly why you're saying that, but just let me share            19       with you the difficulty, that what journalists do is            20       exercise the right of free speech, and whereas you as            21       doctors require licence to practise medicine, and if you            22       are taken to the GMC then the GMC have all sorts of            23       sanctions available, it's quite difficult in relation to            24       the exercise of free speech.            25           That's not to say that there shouldn't be penalties,                                            71             1       there shouldn't be some mechanism whereby there's             2       a holding to account for what you've done.             3   A.  Sure.             4   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  But --             5   A.  Thank you, sir.  I would like to emphasise that             6       I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you             7       have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies             8       and have been shown to do so, then they should be held             9       to account.  That is the issue.  I don't have a problem            10       with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction,            11       suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where            12       substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up,            13       non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.            14   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes.  I wasn't criticising you at            15       all, but I was simply seeking to explain why that            16       particular remedy may be very difficult to apply in this            17       context.  But it's not to say there shouldn't be            18       something.  Now, I'm not saying what, because that's            19       part of what I'm here for, if anything, I say            20       immediately, but you've doubtless read that different            21       people have been suggesting different models.            22   A.  Sure.            23   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  And it's actually that question which            24       is the burning part of the job that I have to do, which            25       only underlines how extremely valuable your experience                                            72             1       has been, and how very grateful I am for you sharing it             2       with us.             3   A.  Sure.             4   MR JAY:  I have no more questions, Dr McCann, Dr McCann.  Is             5       there anything you want to add?  Maybe Mr Sherborne has             6       a point, but that concludes all I have to ask.             7   A.  No, I think we've covered all our points, thank you.             8   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Thank you very much.  Mr Sherborne,             9       did you want to ask something?            10   MR SHERBORNE:  Sir, I realise that we all need time properly            11       to digest the very uncomfortable evidence that the            12       McCanns have given.  As I mentioned last week, we say            13       it's nothing short of a national scandal, but there's            14       one point I do formally want to raise.  It was touched            15       on earlier.            16           We've seen representatives of the media            17       organisations stand up very quickly to respond to the            18       criticism of their newspapers --            19   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Is there going to be a question,            20       Mr Sherborne?            21   MR SHERBORNE:  There is.            22   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Then I'd like to hear the question.            23   MR SHERBORNE:  It's not a question.  I raise this.  It was            24       mentioned by the McCanns and you mentioned it as well,            25       and that is in relation to News International, and what                                            73             1       we do ask is they provide a response, sir, as you             2       mentioned, in relation to the publication of Kate             3       McCann's diary --             4   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Mr Sherborne, I think that is             5       a speech.  We can discuss what we should do, and of             6       course I'm in a position to do something about it,             7       because if there's a name, then I can issue a request,             8       and I put the word "request" in inverted commas, under             9       Section 21 of the 2005 Act, and I can find out.            10   MR SHERBORNE:  Sir, I understand that.  It's not just the            11       byline, if I may say, with respect, because that's the            12       person who wrote the story.  There is also the question,            13       which I'm sure the McCanns would like to be dealt with,            14       if possible, which is who obtained and in what            15       circumstances they obtained the diary from the            16       Portuguese police.            17   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  I understand.            18   MR SHERBORNE:  That's a decision at a higher level.            19   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  That's a thread, and I'm absolutely            20       alert to the point.  I really am.            21   MR SHERBORNE:  I'm very grateful.            22   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Thank you.            23           Dr McCann, Dr McCann, thank you very much indeed.            24       I can only wish you everything well in your continuing            25       search for Madeleine.                                            74             1   MR McCANN:  Thank you.             2   MRS McCANN:  Thank you.             3   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Thank you.             4   MR JAY:  Sir, I've been handed something I'm not sure I can             5       ingest immediately.  It's probably something that can be             6       dealt with as between two of the core participants in             7       the first instance, rather than troubling you, and if it             8       can't, we'll come back to it tomorrow morning.             9   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  All right.  Is there anything else            10       that I can deal with now?            11                     Discussion re procedure            12   MR JAY:  There are two issues.  First of all, there's HJK            13       for tomorrow, and I'm going to leave Mr Barr to deal            14       with that.            15   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes.            16   MR JAY:  Secondly, over lunch I've heard various proposed            17       additional redactions from Mr Garnham in relation,            18       I think, to at least two witnesses' evidence tomorrow.            19       To be clear, the core participants have seen witness            20       statements in unredacted form, so they know what the            21       maximum scope of the evidence is going to be and they            22       can provide lines of questioning to us.            23           Mr Garnham has various concerns, which I hadn't been            24       able to apply my mind to in any detail since I was            25       thinking about other things over the short adjournment,                                            75             1       in particular the evidence we have just heard.             2       I imagine his concern is what is the final version of             3       the witness statement which is going to be placed in the             4       public domain and on the screens here tomorrow morning?             5       If we spend time discussing it or negotiating the             6       contents of the proposed redactions, we are likely to             7       run into a cul de sac, but on the other hand this is             8       a public Inquiry and I don't wish to stifle the             9       presentation and production of evidence which should be            10       provided.            11           I think what I would propose on this occasion,            12       because I don't really want to spend time debating this,            13       there is really quite a lot else to do overnight, is            14       that if the other core participants agree, and they            15       don't even know what the proposed redactions are, we            16       live with the redactions Mr Garnham has proposed.            17           Those, therefore, or rather the witness statement            18       goes on the screen in line with those redactions, but            19       then if there's an objection by anyone tomorrow morning            20       that the proposed redactions go too far or are not            21       substantiated, we then address the objections on that            22       basis.            23   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Yes.            24   MR JAY:  That, in my submission, will be quicker.  However,            25       what I'm not suggesting is some sort of procedure which                                            76             1       ordinarily applies, namely the default position is that             2       which the MPS would desire, because that is not right,             3       without further submission.             4   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  It's not what I've said.  Indeed,             5       quite the reverse.             6   MR JAY:  Yes.             7   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  I've said the opposite.             8   MR JAY:  Precisely.             9           I am proposing with a degree of reluctance            10       a pragmatic solution which will speed things up, but I'm            11       not endorsing a procedure which is going to apply more            12       generally.  Anybody can turn up tomorrow morning and say            13       no, that redaction is inappropriate, we should lift it,            14       or indeed, the more effective way of dealing with it is            15       that we'll just hear the evidence and then the witness            16       statement can be put in a different form online a little            17       bit later.            18           It's not as if the public nature of the Inquiry is            19       going to be disrupted save for a short period of time,            20       but I really don't want to spend time now involving            21       other core participants and discussing the precise text            22       of redactions.  I will live with what Mr Garnham has            23       proposed, with reluctance, and then we'll have to think            24       of a way forward for the future.            25   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  I think it's very important that one                                            77             1       goes back to thinking about what truly would potentially             2       prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution.             3   MR JAY:  Yes.             4   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  In the very unusual circumstances of             5       this case, where there is in fact a great deal already             6       in the public domain, and one knows that if there is to             7       be a criminal prosecution, it's a long way down the             8       track.  But I understand Mr Garnham's point,             9       I understand your approach, I am content to follow it,            10       but we have to devise a mechanism whereby these concerns            11       about redactions are provided perhaps rather sooner or            12       dealt with rather sooner so that we're not in the            13       position of adopting this approach.  Right?            14   MR JAY:  The whole issue of redactions is beginning to cause            15       us concern that we have to prioritise a number of            16       things.  The main priority is to ensure that the            17       evidence comes out clearly, that lines of questioning            18       from the core participants are accommodated, and we give            19       proper thought to the evidence, since that is the public            20       face of the Inquiry.  We spend hours on redactions each            21       day that will divert us from --            22   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Redactions should be the exception            23       rather than the rule.            24   MR JAY:  Yes indeed they should.            25   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Those preparing the statements know                                            78             1       the position, know what I've said, they know that             2       I don't wish to prejudice any continuing investigation             3       or potential prosecution if there is to be one, and             4       therefore they should be prepared on that basis and I'll             5       require some convincing that sensible lines haven't been             6       drawn.             7   MR JAY:  Yes.  We may need to come back to that which we             8       were discussing this morning.  However, in the first             9       instance may I invite Mr Barr to deal with HJK who is            10       giving evidence first thing tomorrow morning?            11   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Right.  Mr Barr, I've seen the            12       application made on behalf of HJK.  I'm conscious that            13       the protocol in relation to anonymity by witnesses has            14       not yet been promulgated.  That's in part, as I said,            15       because each time I've thought I've done it, there's            16       been another set of submissions and I've had to go back            17       to it merely to make sure that I've considered            18       everybody's submissions, but it seems to me, and I'll            19       hear anybody who wants to suggest to the contrary, that            20       the position of HJK is very different to the position of            21       journalists and others who wish to give evidence            22       anonymously.            23           This is a person whose privacy is presently            24       protected.  In other words, he's not seeking to say of            25       any outlet, "They are about to do something outrageous                                            79             1       or breach my privacy", because he has protection in             2       relation to that.  He is, however, going to talk about,             3       as I read his draft statement, the impact upon him in             4       relation to the issue -- the main issue that we've been             5       discussing, the question of interception.  Is that             6       right?             7   MR BARR:  That absolutely right, sir.  An open application             8       was made by HJK, it's been circulated to the core             9       participants.  It sets out at paragraph 5 a number of            10       protective measures which are sought.  I'm not going to            11       read them out verbatim unless you invite me to but I can            12       summarise what their effect would be.            13           It would be essentially that the public would be            14       excluded from this room whilst HJK gives evidence.            15       There will be no video or audio broadcast of HJK's            16       evidence, and confirmation will be sought that the            17       equipment is off before HJK enters the room.  A live            18       transcript will also be turned off.  A transcript of the            19       evidence, though, will be promulgated by the Inquiry            20       after he has given evidence and those who represent him            21       have been able to confirm that to put out the transcript            22       will not violate the witness's right to privacy.            23   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  We'll all know at the time when it            24       happens, won't we, because the real point is that HJK's            25       concern is that in the anxiety of giving evidence, and                                            80             1       I have no doubt there are some people in the room today             2       who will understand that, that he will say something             3       that he didn't mean to say and that would therefore             4       compromise the privacy that he is seeking to protect.             5       But the idea is that the core participants, their             6       lawyers should be here, and they will actually see HJK             7       and hear him, but that it will have no wider             8       promulgation, although immediately after his evidence is             9       concluded, and I emphasise that word, his transcript            10       will be made available.            11   MR BARR:  That's right, sir.  The final matter is that he's            12       submitted a confidential annex and unsurprisingly the            13       application is that that confidential annex will not be            14       referred to during evidence.            15   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  He explains why he seeks the relief            16       that he seeks.            17   MR BARR:  The information in the confidential annex combined            18       with the closed application does precisely that, sir.            19       And could I submit that these are appropriate measures            20       which are a proportionate way of safeguarding this            21       witness's privacy.            22   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  All right.  Thank you very much.            23           I make it clear that I do not intend to use HJK as            24       a template.  I don't think it's got any relevance at all            25       to the issues of anonymity that are raised in relation                                            81             1       to journalists.  I don't believe he will be giving any             2       evidence specifically touching a named person or taking             3       any further that which we already know in relation to             4       interception.             5           Does anybody have any observations to make about the             6       application that's been made?             7           Right, thank you.  I make orders accordingly, and             8       possibly they could be drawn up in appropriate form so             9       that I have complied with the terms of the legislation.            10   MR BARR:  Sir, I'm sure that that could be done.            11   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Thank you very much.  So it's            12       important to underline that first thing tomorrow morning            13       we will be closed.  I don't apprehend it will take very            14       long, but for the public and the press, save for those            15       who are core participants and attending as core            16       participants, they will have the unenviable problem of            17       just having to wait for us.            18           Right.  Is there anything else?            19   MR JAY:  I have now ingested this correspondence and I'm            20       going to be quite short about it.  One core participant            21       is complaining about another core participant's media            22       blog regarding evidence we heard this morning.  They can            23       sort it out between themselves.            24   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Thank you very much.  If anybody            25       wants to bring anything to my attention because they                                            82             1       feel it's necessary, then they can do so, but they'd             2       better have a pretty good reason.             3           Has the position that was being discussed just             4       before lunch been resolved?             5   MR JAY:  I'm not sure.  I think it depended a bit on             6       Mr Caplan, but --             7   MR CAPLAN:  Can I say this, we're not pursuing that matter             8       at the moment.             9   LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:  Right, thank you very much indeed.            10       Thank you very much indeed.            11   (4.10 pm)            12    (The hearing adjourned until 10 o'clock the following day)            13            14            15            16            17            18            19            20            21            22            23            24            25                                            83