2003. >> yes. >> an alleged rape. is there anything you wish to add to that, or highlight, mr. shear? >> well, i say it's an example of how a newspaper might seek to bring into the public domain information about which if they brought into the public domain themselves they would suffer if the risk of defamation actions or privacy actions. and i spoke in that particular instance. the individual involved was, i use the expression vilified, because he was unwilling to participate or to condone intrusion into his private life and, therefore, whilst he was a high profile footballer, at the same time he wanted to retain a private life. and the newspapers didn't appreciate that he would contest that, their intrusion. and in this particular instance or circumstance, i can give you -- that's quite a lot in the public domain already. there were a group of footballers were staying at the hotel. they were the subject of the complaint by a young lady, that she had been sexually assaulted and raped. i acted for the footballers concerned. unfortunately, for one of my clients he was also staying at the hotel and was probably of more interest and have a higher profile than the other footballers, and was the vilified football who i mentioned a few moments ago. and there was i think a clear focus by the newspapers to identify him as being the likely potential acute, if you like. if you like. and to bring his name into the public domain by inference and suggestion i've the placing of stories and pictures. in close proximity to the articles as they were published. this was a very high profile event that was front-page news for several weeks. there didn't seem to be much interest in actually identifying whether or not it was appropriate for him to be, or his name to be brought out in this fashion. and we let it be known, let it know that he was not actually present at any event about which he could be, oil should be any concern of him or interest to them. but they went ahead and inferred his involvement, and we subsequently sued, and we substantively sued which was resolved. >> so in the end it was the defamation which provided the resolution? >> yes. i think that there was a point where so many people, so much in a way of suggestion and inference that his name was being bandied about as the likely instigator or perpetrat perpetrator. and it was being traded on the internet, and so he felt that he had to come out and actually clear his name voluntarily. and you know, not only is it interesting in that circumstance, people actually remember the wrong parts of the story as well as the right parts of the story, for his activity and for his willingness to come out and say, firstly, i was not involved and they try to involve me, and secondly, also for his, i suppose his, his willingness to pursue the media after the effect. he, for many years, after the case was resolved, became the subject of unwanted attention as well, almost on in databases by many sections of the newspapers that were the subject of our proceedings. >> you refer to the issue of what you call revenge fueled attacks. you mention a specific case, which for obvious reasons you can't tell the detail of. you do refer to a three-year campaign by the press -- [inaudible] it can be difficult to give examples without revealing perhaps the identity of your client, but is there anything more you can say about that on an anonymous basis the? >> i think this particular instance was particularly disgraceful actually. i think that the notion that they had any belief in the integrity of the story was completely satisfied by what we learned later on by this appeared to be an opportunity by newspapers generally to buy a video which contained supposedly explicit material. the newspaper concerned decided not to buy the video, a publisher and unsubstantiated story, which did not seek to identify but only create speculation about our client. the way in which they did it was intended to either identify him for the benefits of those who were able to reconstruct a pixelated image by cross-referencing it on -- it was pixelated in a silhouette by cross-referencing against photographs that were published in other media and, therefore, if you like to bring in his name. what they didn't appreciate is that identification is actionable. we contested it and the consequences of that is, not only was that a general target of interest, does it is -- because of his ability and talent as a professional sportsman but also in other areas. but there was definitely an element of a revenge fueled fervor. because there seem to be a desire, if you dish out some retribution, and that they were determined to prove something that was damaging to his reputation or to his private life as part of, if you like, the quid pro quo of having the ability to take on the national media in the circumstances. and you know, any person is put under a microscope, an intensive microscope. and if there are large amounts that are being bandied about for the provision of information, the oldest of checkbook journalism, together with if you like, the focus, intensity of targeting a person together with what appears to be a systemic approach to surveillance with phone hacking and other facilities, provide some results. and those results were certainly exploited beyond what was, i fear, appropriate or even vaguely in any form of public interest scenario, excessive. >> u.s. as the inquirer analysis from your perspective as the business model of a newspaper, you say. the calculation comes otherwise, in the end speculation will be increased and that will cover any damages and defamation or privacy they might have to pay. may i ask you about the business model of firms such as yours? this is a point which i'm sure the press would wish me to make of you. is it right the in many of these cases you work on conditional fee arrangements with your client's? >> on some, yes, i do. i've only done so for the last i suppose four or five years, maximum. i did it for or i sort of deal for two or three reasons, and it's not only in the area of media or privacy related or defamation related work. i do it in other areas. it's too, if you like, balance out the power quotient between the parties to our adversaries. it's also to utilize the potential of risk, and also if you like to create a dialogue between the solicitor's acting for my adversary and that adversaries so that, whether it's in a commercial case or whether it is in a media or defamation case, that dialogue about the consequences of pursuing a defense in an action are often brought home very clearly when there is a discussion about financings that are involved. and i've noticed that those cases where there is a cfa, conditional fee agreement in place, are often more likely set not because the opposing party is concerned about whether or not they are asked to going to win or lose the case, but it is more about actually accelerating and bringing earlier in the action that consideration of whether or not it's worthwhile elongation decays and continue the defense because if they lose the costs will increase. >> at the point of view of the opposing party, imagine a scenario, you told us of damages in cases are not particularly large, 60,000 pounds, that imagine a case where the opponent, the claim is on 100% fee basis, commercial from such as yours, obviously you apply appropriate counsel for the client. [inaudible] and, therefore, the used paper passionate newspaper keckler potential with defensible cases, that they are almost compelled to set them low rather than fight them risks are now disproportionately high. isn't that right? >> no, i don't think so for a moment. let's look at decays, for example, you mentioned the highest case of 60,000 pounds. that's no more than sort of a very gentle parking fine in proportion to the turnover in the financial returns on publishing very high profile stories. if one puts it in some form of the context, the highest damages awarded at 60,000 is not really compared to the premium being paid to the kiss and tell girls at the other end of the story provision if you like equation. if the newspapers feel, as they should do on quite a high portion of the cases that they are risk of losing on a case, then they could he have the opportunity to settle that case by making a sensible and appropriate and proportionate offer of settlement. now, if they do the early than the consequences of the cfa do not actually, upon them, the adverse costs of the escalation of the cost and let's also be clear about this. the maximum consequences to a newspaper are double. so it's whenever said uplift if all goes on at the site, including solicitor's and the barristers, are all on 100% uplift. and the case is found to warrant 100% uplift. but i can say i didn't cases on cfa base and i've taken into assessment as well as the ordinarily go to assessment, and actually, and most investigations the courts only award something in the region of 65, 75% of the costs on assessment to the winning party. and, therefore, there is a heavy dilution to the, if you like, whenever said uplift in any event. and really, the risk to the newspapers of a cfa are only restricted to those cases where they actually lose them. i do not believe there is a real deterrent factor there where they have a significant prospect of losing, really, any case where they believe they have less than 50% chance of winning that case should really be selling out in any event. >> mr. shear, approximately how many cases the last few years in this area have you done on a cfa? >> excluding the phone hacking cases that we are conducting at the moment, no more than a handful. maybe six or seven. >> yes. have you lost any of them? >> no. >> can you give us some idea -- >> can i just -- you will appreciate when one assesses whether a cfa is appropriate to enter into as a solicitor, we wait out the merits of the case very carefully because we're taking a significant risk in investing our time into that case. so i wouldn't take a case which i didn't believe was likely to have good or very good prospects of success. and so, therefore, one would only choose an appropriate case to him into a cfa on. >> that's a very sensible. unless there's no doubt about it, the risk assessment is carried out by the solicitor and if appropriate, counsel, before any significant work is done. enough work for you to evaluate whether it is good, bad or indifferent? >> yes. >> and your policy would be quite prudent, -- [inaudible] >> correct. >> from the newspapers perspective, imagine the uncertainties of litigation, we all see cases which are stone cold winters, stone cold losers, but many cases fought in the middle, the 40-60% chance of success bracket. existence of a cfa agreement will cause a prudent newspaper to be more cautious in relation to litigation, athletes possibly to adopt a more sensible approach and so it earlier, wouldn't you agree with that speak was not necessarily. i believe that there has over the last few years, i suppose since the evolution and development of privacy law in this country and the passing of the human rights act been a slightly strange attitude and an opaque you about what is and what is not in the public interest. and this sort of devotion to promoting our right to publish because of role models and hypocrisy became sort of a ready mantra. i think it is prepaid through the decision-making process. so even where there is a clear case where private information has been utilized and disseminated, and that actually it looks like, it looks pretty clear that there was no proper public interest ground upon which the media went on to publish it because they haven't been able to identify evidence or submit that evidence, and they still have gone ahead and contested the cases. and i think it's partially because they see it as not just one battle but an ongoing war, and they feel the necessity to maintain arms at every single battle, even though they may look like cases that shouldn't be contested. and i think that's also pervaded through the way in which they then, i feel like, published either the story or recrimination in relation to the consequences of their publication, whether it be defamation findings against them for privacy fines against them by either seeking to vilify the high court judges who have heard those cases, or the participants in the action in further targeting them later on. so, it kind of lens through. i don't think it's necessarily a totally rational view with which some of these cases, in which the media have continued to contest them and maintain them. >> it's right to say them with relation to cfa two things. first of all, under close scrutiny following for jackson's report, and second as i mentioned, this time last week, is jurisprudence, human rights, -- [inaudible] there was a breach of article 10 of the convention relations of the cfa, which will need to be considered. may i touch though on one aspect of the public interest, and suggest that in the cases which fall in the middle of the spectrum, they are quite difficult judgment till issues. we can quite see cases on one end of the spectrum where, i'm getting a hypothetical case, a politician, and this is being mentioned, in relation to family life, it is made explicit and then unfortunately the politician -- [inaudible] there may be not much dispute about that, but the identification of a public interest in exposing the mismatch may be quite clear. >> i will except that. >> and then on the other hand, maybe we will be seeing evidence bearing on this a bit later in the week, we have successful people who have bent over backwards to protect their privacy, in particular the privacy of their children, and where maybe it is very difficult to see a problem that proper public interest build at all the private life, quite straightforward cases. what about the cases in the middle and perhaps some of the role model cases? aren't those cases so and actually found out with public expectations about how people should behave, maybe footballers in a certain position in a national team are whatever, just to give you one possible example, that it's very difficult to be god mad at as to where the public interest lies. it's a matter of opinion, isn't it a? >> i agree to a degree. i think that there are distinctions 20 different classes or groups of those to whom you refer. like you, if i, if one of our elected officials was transgressing in a way diminished the standing which we should hold them in, then i would want to know about it. if there was some event that was occurring, that related to the world being of society, i would want to know that. and i'm sure everyone else would want to know about it and, therefore, the rights to privacy in those circumstances are cleanly diminished. you can normally separate what is private information from what is information that should be disseminated in the public interest. when you speak of role models or when you speak of those who play football, you know, there are those who have to make their living from promoting their onscreen persona and, therefore, have to support that persona with marketing activity such as actors or actresses who appeared in, large motion pictures. they have to go through a process. but to action know the person? no, we know their onscreen persona. we know the persona which has evolved through our perception of what they are about. now, i believe that they are still entitled to a private life, and same goes to professional footballers. it's hard to understand how the suggestion that all professional footballers, or even those that play for the national team, should be automatically considered to be a role model to all who read the newspapers, or all who watch them play. the main reason why they have achieved that success, because other on pitch or on-field ability and excellence, largely as a result of having decided that from a very early age that they wanted to be a professional sportsman. they haven't actually decided that what they really want to be is a professional sportsman who also appears in the newspapers or on the media. because the vast majority of our professional footballers earn very, very, very different money from off pitch activities, only an absolute handful who have earned significant come any significant sums. and only one or two of them who could fall into the category of there being crossover between professional sports and general media profile. so i can't except so far as the professional footballers are concerned. unless one has a case, and there are cases, that do stand out as odd these cases where there may be public interest reasons why that information should be disseminated. but the overwhelming majority are private. there's one further point i'd like to put on. this mantra of, you know, journalists and employers who worked for the "news of the world," other newspapers, constantly saying your clients are able model, a role model. they are hypocrites. to hear that from the senior generals who i knew extremely well at the "news of the world" and editors and editors of various, whether it be from the news or features or sports or whatever, and getting this over and over again about how my clients have been hypocrites because they have had, i know an additional relationship or whatever. something to learn of the activities of the "news of the world" whilst they had supposedly been seeking to identify the hypocrisy of others, and yet they themselves throughout this period were acting unlawfully, the hypocrisy in my view. >> i can see the weakness of the tit-for-tat argument. the manager has supported a view of journalists with relation to the english captain a couple years ago. it took six minutes to sack the captain for failing, to be the role model he was supposed to be. so journalistic view, not necessarily off on a limb, is it? >> i never quite sure the extent to which the decision-making of in england manager is detached from the p.r. people who operate it. but your absolute right. there may be positions within public life, such as the captain of a national team, where standards of their private life are expected by those who place them into those positions to be higher than others. but fine, what are we talking about there? we're talking about a relatively few people. most people can't actually separate their public engagements, actions, and if you like activities from those which are private. i mean, i have no, other than my activities acting as a lawyer for people in the or large countries, i have no public persona. i can separate out my private life from what i do and act on behalf of relation, and most people in public life have been adept at actually separating out those circumstances, especially when it comes to their families pashtun family circumstances and children and elderly parents, et cetera. >> mr. hsu, thank you for bearing with me. i've given you a bit of a platform. you have taken up the opportunity very eloquently if i may say, absolutely clear, others would be in a position to express -- [inaudible] will be given exactly the same courtesy. i'm grateful to see you coming and i have no further questions. >> i've got three topics which move back a little bit, and each of rise from something you said. you spoke about the concern of your clients following 2004 about the question of interception, and then finding about the multi-or notebook. and intrusiveness at you were expensing through your clients, what i'd like to know is whether that has stayed the same, got better, or worse in the years since 2006, 2007, 2008 as we've learned more and more about what's going on. in other words, one thing to pick up on is the question we've understood said the press, we've got the picture and it's now very different. you get a number of time periods -- >> yes, i,