was trying to shut the whole thing down from the beginning. she of course never mentioned anything to do with nazis. everyone would have been horrified. particularly the german -- because being a modern german person she would have been horrified. it is absolutely clearly there. >> and to be clear about it, you obtained a copy of the video which is part and parcel of the disclosure in the civil proceedings? >> indeed. >> than the second and you have party already dealt with this mr. mosley it, is paragraph 33 and this was the second article on the sixth of april, the follow-up article. you were offered some more money, 8000 pounds you told us. so we understand it in sequence what was the significance of this point? what were you driving at here? >> well to me it is that they wanted a follow-up article because i had said this was untrue. they wanted to really put the boudin, so they wrote this article purporting to be by the lady, and completely composed myself. i went back and rewrote parts of it and then during the trial, they were saying that this was the result of numerous telephone conversations, which i don't pick anybody really believes. not surprising i don't think the conversation ever took place. he simply invented the entire article. >> m. paragraph 34 and 35 explain that within the "news of the world," the story was very tightly kept. in other words very limited number of people because the risk of leaks would obviously cause a consequent risk that you might take the proceedings to injunction. is that right? >> that's right. i think they realize publishing this article was completely illegal and therefore if i found out about it and went to a judge it would be stopped but knowing, therefore knowing it was illegal they took a number of courses including this booth as mentioned earlier to make sure that nobody in my camp as it were would find out. >> in the last evidential point i would like to deal with, and this is quite a detailed.under the heading blackmail. and it does relate to mr. -- could you tell us about this in your own words? maybe we can start with an e-mail which was sent from the second of april, 2008, three or four days after the publication of the first article. the e-mail reads, i hope you are well. .. >> will you comment on that, but before you do, paragraph 37 of your witness statement, and just about to send you a series of pictures to perform the basic of this article this week and reveal of the identities of the girls involved because it's the only follow-up to the story. our preferred story, however, would be you speaking directly with your dealings with max, and we'd be grateful and return you full anonymity, pixelate jr. faces and have a sum of money for you putting you in the driver's seat giving you control and preserving your an anyone times, and your names will not be used. do not hesitate to e-mail me with the thoughts, and there was an offer of money. anybody reading that, and this was just the conclusion could think this was close; is that fair, mr. mosley? >> i think so. what they said in the last e-mail is if you don't cooperate, we'll publish your pictures unpixelated, but if you do, weave -- we'll give you 8,000 pounds. it was terrifying for the girls if their families would find out of their work. three had significant positions. one was a very serious scientist. another one had a major position in health care. another was running an office, and only one of them fairly anonymous, and they were all at risk, and this being published in news of the world was terrified them. the only admirable thing is they did not succumb to it. >> thank you. now, i'm not going to deal with the trial itself, but the justice of mrs. eddy and try to navigate my way through it to understand the findings and reasoning because the reasoning is important in terms of article 8. now, in our bundle, the judgment starts, sir, internal number 14, and it is a lengthy judgment. let me try -- >> certainly a judgment that repays reading in full. >> yeah. >> yes. >> mr. justice eddy, having set the sign in paragraph 44 on the little internal numbers page 24, considers the factual question was there -- [inaudible] and his conclusion was there was not, although his conclusion comes as a slightly later point in the judgment. paragraph 79, this is page 31, the justice deals with the blackmail allegation. he's absolutely clear about it, mr. mosley, paragraph 22 on page 32. the justice says this appears to contain a clear threat to the women involved unless they cooperate, their identities would be revealed. there was then cross-examination on this issue, paragraph 85. he accepted the e-mails could be interpreted as a threat, and the justice's observation in relation to mr. miler, the end of paragraph 85 just seems to fall short of the endorsement of the reporter's behavior. >> a wonderful way of understatement. >> yeah. >> well, it's the witness, mr. miler, works out the cross- examiner is talking about plaque mail, and -- blackmail, and doesn't think it is, but it could be interpreted as a threat, and i accept that. i would love to know how else it could be interpreted. >> mr. justice then asked his own questions in paragraph 86. his questions were directed to the obvious point. why wasn't this raised? here's him possibly blackmailing people, why didn't mr. miler raise that with him? the answer was not in the justice's view or the view of any objective read satisfactory, and what justice says at the bottom of page 33, this is effectively a non-answer from which it appears mr. miler did not consider there was anything at all objectionable to the approach of the women because he didn't query at any stage, and this remains to be a remarkable state of affairs. arguably quite a strong judicial criticism there. >> well, i mean, coming from a high court judge, i think that's impressive, but almost more impressive is that a few months later, they applied for the title of newspaper of the year based on their ground breaking year, we believe the impact of our experience and our way forward, and following the max mosley legal ruling helped define legal tabloid reporting in britain. the mosley conclusion itself, and they said what a good job was done, and i think that's completely sentimentsal because that's their entire attitude. >> in paragraph 87, the lordship has the cross-examination on this point, not going through it with you, but the upshot was at the end of the paragraph 87 that he didn't understand the point put to him in cross-examination or possibly pretended not to understand the point put to him. i'm not sure exactly which. >> yes, i believe his line was, "but i was giving them a choice." that's what blake mailers -- blackmailers always do. >> that's the facts we need, and to be absolutely clear, the judge makes a finding there was no nasty thieves. just before you leave that there is a point here because i go wac to the words that ring in my ears alls time, "culture, practice, and ethics," and mr. eddy said, i'm offering to pay them money, offer to pay them, not take anything from them, so i'm not blackmailing at all. 245 thought never crossed my mind. i'm offering the choice, and the judge goes on, and it seems he did not see the point, yet he's elementary that blackmail would be committed through threatings of something which would not in itself be unlawful, so the question that's obviously going to have to be asked quite apart from any questions about it is weather that state of mind was limited to one reporter or one newspaper or is actually the state of mind of others. >> it's precisely a line we have in mind and has been asked to deal -- >> yes, yes, but my point is that it's not just him because one can reach conclusions about an individual or find a dandy and don't go very far. the question is is this is pervasive perception, and if not, then i need to know it, and if it is, then equally. >> yeah. >> to his conclusion as a matter of law. you see whether we can chart a path through that and move to page 40 on the internal numbering in paragraph 110. he's dealing here with a public interest, and was there justification to deal with the intrusion, and he deals first with the point that i'm sure it was featured in the news of the world thinking, but whether there was underlying criminality, and he soundly objected that point. that's something we need go into, mr. mosley, and then paragraph 112 there's a nasty themed point. there's two aspects to this. the first is paragraph 123 where he finds there was not a nasty scene and therefore self-of self-evidently it would not classify as a national public interest, and in paragraph 122, he considers, well, if i had come to the conclusion there was a nasty scene, what then? maybe his conclusion was somewhat equivocal. he didn't have to decide the point. you may or may not have had a finding of fact, which he didn't. the third public interest issue, and this, i think is an important one, is under the heading depravity and adultery starting at paragraph 124. the argument in which mr. justice of addressing was whether there was a public interest in revealing immoral, depraveed or to an extent adulteress behavior. the lordship found that there was not. really as a matter of law, in particular paragraph 127. his analysis of the cases and case in the house of lords campbell was given there was the human rights in play here, mainly the right to privacy, and i quote, "it's not the journalists who undermind human rights or if the judge refuses to comport them, but on the grounds of moral disapproval. everyone is approved to beliefs to the effect that certain types of sexual behavior are wrong or demeaning to those participating. it does not mean they are entitled hound those who practice them or hurt those who live life the way they choose." the point he's making given that we're in the domain of privacy, the law does not concern itself with making a moral judgment of what concerns over the domain of privacy is my understanding of what the justice is saying. do you follow that? >> i do. i think that it's entirely reasonable because the problem is that if you could breach privacy merely because disapproved of what someone was doing or not to your taste, well, we would be all over the place because sexual behavior covers a huge variety of things, and when you start analyzing it, what i might like, somebody else might hate and vice versa, so where would it stop? the rational thing is to say provided its adults and provided itself in private and provided everybody consents, then it's nobody else's businesses. and justice, if i understood him rightly, was stating the law to be precisely that. in other words, it's the sort of john stuart mill attitude rather than the rather disapproving moralist attitude, and i think the law recognizes the john stuart mill that if you're not doing any harm to anybody, you should be allowed to do whatever you like, and that view is the modern view, but once upon a time, people felt completely able to pillar ri somebody because they disapproved or their tastes were different. we moved oven from that, and the idea it's tabloid journalists to pillary people is distasteful, and had that not disappeared, the gay community would be at risk, and i think he's absolutely right, and i think it's extraordinary that the tabloid press doesn't recognize that, and, of course, the truth of the fact is they do recognize it, but it doesn't suit them to admit that that is actually how thanks should be. >> thank you. i think one has to be careful to distinguish this position, which, of course you're quite entitled to give us, and we can agree or disagree with that, and that legal analysis, and mr. justice eddy may not share that view, but he was saying analyzing article viii of the convention, the concept of privacy means, and this is how the courts interpreted it, that you do not conduct a moral judgment of what is occurring in the domain of privacy. it is just off limits. you see that? >> i see that completely. it makes absolute sense. >> yes. i know of no case in strausberg or domestically that contradicts that part of the justice's reasoning. it is core to the inquiry. >> i think it is, and if i may say so, had he got that wrong, it would have been at the court of the appeals, and the fact it didn't go to the court of appeals, i think that strongly suggests that he got it right. >> well that's certainly a fair point since we know the case was not appealed. the only other point of principle that we gather from the judgment is, and this is paragraph 135 -- the point of who decides the public interest and the lordship makes it clear, and, again, this has to be right because it's the matter of the basic law that it's for the court to decide ultimately, if the cation come -- case comes to the court. >> yes, i think that must be right as well >> we'll accept this the court has to have regard in judgment in tastes of expression of concern. i'm merely just reading on. at the end of the day the nasty theme allegation having fallen to the ground and the immorality point being a point which couldn't be taken, there was no public interest justification to be played, and you won; is that right? >> yes. >> you were not successful in the obtaining exemplary damages. probably isn't necessary to explore why, but he made findings of fact, which meant that whatever the law was in the second head of exemplary damages law, you with respect able to obtain them in these circumstances? >> that's correct. >> in terms of damages the award was 60,000 pounds, which was -- perhaps still is the highest award of damages in the privacy case. do you know whether it still is? >> i believe it still is. >> awarded by a court. >> i think i'm right in saying, since my case, there's only one fought privacy trial, and it was lost, and of course, people don't for the reasons i explained earlier that you have to be eccentric or determined before you bring the purpose of the action because it's lose, lose, lose. >> well, we don't know how many settled. we don't know how many have settled. >> no. >> maybe you do. >> i don't know, no, but i think what happens is if somebody finds out therein as application for an -- there's an application for injunction which will usually be granted, that's the end of the case, and if there's an application of injunction that fails, then the information will be published, and that's the end of the matter so to speak, so i think somebody being awarded damages, i don't think -- certainly, none of the settlements i heard of, of course, the famous taylor and clifford settlements, but that's another matter, and there's reasons there, but i have not heard of large sums of money changing hands. >> mr. justice at the end of the judgment recognizes two obvious things. the first is, and it's always there, that no amount of damages can fully compensate you for the damage done. that would always apply whatever the context, and secondly, he says in relation to you, he is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined, and this is the genie out of the bottle point. >> it is because you work all your life to try and achieve something or do something useful, and i've got -- when this came up, i got to the age of 68, and i'd achieved things i was proud of, anyway, to do -- that had i been doing, and suddenly something like this happens, and that's what you are remembered for, and however long i live now, that is the number one thing that people think of when they hear my name, and, of course, it really matters, and sometimes if i could just make this point, it sometimes said, yes, but it's the same with personal injuries. if you have an injury, you lose your arm, the courts can do nothing. they can only compensate you financially, and, of course, that's true, but the difference in the fundamental difference is this that if you could go to a high court judge and say i'm about to have an accident, i'm going to lose my arm, will you please stop the accident because this is all you have to do, make an order, it's inconceivable that he'd refuse the order. the problem with accidents is every possible precaution is taken to stop them from happening, but in the end, they happen. whereas any revolution of privacy can be stopped by a judge. the only thing that's absolutely essential is that you should know that you can go to a judge. as soon as you know about it, it goes to an independent assessment where the judge weighs your right of privacy to somebody else's right to free speech or whatever, and he takes a decision, but if they ambush you ark and it's out there, no judge on earth can save you. that's really what it comes to. >> the testament was handed down. there was not an appeal. we know that as a matter of record. there was a public statement or prepared statement delivered by mr. miler on the steps outside here accusing the courts of introducing a privacy law by the back door, and that's paragraph 50 of your witness statement, but to be fair to mr. mielg e that's -- miler, that's his right, isn't it? to comment on the judgment. would you agree? >> i think he's got an absolute right to comment on the judgment. >> whether he should have commented without appealing may be for others to judge, but there was some fairly -- certainly bad taste, and i may be forgiven for describing it in that way, reporting -- well 52 of your judgments -- >> just a second. >> of your statement, pardon me. some newspapers couldn't resist the rather freedom craft. >> yes, this is sort of typical of the steady stream of that sort of thing coming from the gutter press, and, you know, i think one just has to put up with it. once it was out they were going to do this, but it's not just the sun. >> but, again, they have the right to comment and whether they do so in a high minded way or some different way is a matter for their hostile. >> indeed. i think it reflects more on them than on me. >> okay. well, actually, it's one o'clock. >> yeah, before we finish, you quoted, mr. mosley, from a document which you described as news of the world put themselves forward for or otherwise being put forward for an award. is that in the bundle of documents. >> i'm really sorry, sir, it's not, but i have a copy, and we can make copies of it. i forgot to put it in. >> no, that's fair enough, but i'd like to see it, and just so i make it clear why i want to see it because it goes back to whether this is one reporter or, indeed, one journal, but what is happening in the industry as a whole. >> as you will see, this makes it clear they were very proud of what they had done. >> all right. that's the point. well, i'd be grateful if you could make that available. thank you so much. two o'clock. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i believe i was about to take you to paragraph 53 of your witness statement, please. you suggest they agreed to launch a campaign against mr. justice eddy. >> yes, that's correct. >> was that a joint campaign or a several campaign? >> it's my understanding it's joint in agreement. my understanding is they got together, but then decided the justice was to be attacked. >> yes. well, i am asked to put you this, and it's probably no surprise that associating this position is that whatever stance he took, and he was quite entitled to take it, it certainly was not fair in any collusion with ms. brooks. he did it of his own back. do you have any comment? >> i would not find that surprising, but i must say in general about these people, and by that, i mean, brooks as well, and in rebecca's case, she could deny for england because they denied the e-mail. they denied that they'd had more than one journalist involved in hacking. they denied it again until it became absolutely obvious and mr. edmondson was fired, and april of this year they admitted it could have happened bet