This is today’s statement in open court on the Nightjack hack.  For background see my posts at New Statesman here and on the settlement here.

 

IN THE High Court of justice

Chancery Division

BETWEEN:-

 RICHARD HORTON

Claimant


and

 


TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

Defendant

 

 

STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT

 Solicitor for the Claimant.

  1. My Lord, in this action I appear for the Claimant, Richard Horton, and my learned friend appears for the Defendant, Times Newspapers Limited, the publisher of The Times.
  2. By way of background, the Claimant was the author of the highly successful “blog” known as “Nightjack an English Detective”. In April 2009 he won the Orwell prize for political writing.
  3. In May 2009 a journalist employed by the Defendant, informed the Claimant that he had discovered his identity and that the Defendant was about to reveal his identity by publishing it in The Times. The Claimant sought to restrain the Defendant from publication by injunction to retain his anonymity.
  4. In evidence put to the court, the Defendant claimed that the journalist had discovered the Claimant’s identity by legitimate means. In fact, the truth of the matter was very different; the journalist had gained unauthorised access to the Claimant’s email account. This was known to the Defendant at the time that it filed evidence in opposition to the injunction, but it failed to inform the Court of this fact.  Mr Justice Eady found for the Defendant and the Claimant settled the litigation on the terms that the application for the injunction was dismissed and the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.
  5. In the process of giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry on press standards, James Harding, the Editor of The Times, stated that he had established the course of events and confirmed that the journalist had gained unauthorised access to the Claimant’s email account. He also apologised to the Court and to the Claimant.
  6. The Claimant has brought this claim for damages for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and for deceit, and for an order that the costs order in the original proceedings be set aside.
  7. I am here to inform your Lordship that the Defendant has today agreed to apologise to the Claimant for the hurt it has caused him, to pay him substantial damages for the breach of confidence and for the misuse of his private information and the deceit, and to undertake not to access or attempt to access the Claimant’s email account again. The Defendant has also agreed to pay his legal costs.

 

Counsel for the Defendant.

  1. My Lord, on behalf of the Defendant Times Newspapers Limited, I confirm everything my friend has said.
  2. The Defendant is here today through me to offer its sincere apologies to the Claimant for the hurt it has caused him.  The Defendant has agreed to pay the Claimant substantial damages for accessing his email account without his consent, and to pay his legal costs.  The Defendant has also undertaken not to access or attempt to access the Claimant’s email account again.

 

Solicitor for the Claimant.

  1. Under the circumstances, the Claimant considers his claim to have been vindicated and I would ask the court to formally withdraw the record.

 

 

________________________________________________________________

 

7 Responses to Nightjack: The Statement in Open Court

  • Matthew says:

    I think some measure of praise is due to The Times for coming clean about this, albeit after some gentle prompting, which no other paper has properly done yet.

    It makes me feel relatively confident that at The Times it really was a case of “One Rogue Reporter” (plus some bad editorial decision making).

  • Tom says:

    Nice result. But the phrase “offer its sincere apologies” seems a little stretched, coming as it does only upon being brought to court with a pretty bang-to-rights case to face. Though I do believe The Times is sincerely sorry to find itself in this position, and at least they didn’t qualify the description of “hurt” with the standard weasley “for any … caused” phrasing.

  • Tokyo Nambu says:

    So what we learn from this is that the high-minded sneering from broadsheets at the horrid tabloids and their horrid habits is completely misplaced, and the editor of The Times is just as dishonest as the editors of tabloids. Worse, really, because The Times appear intensely relaxed about lying under oath in court.

    It’s also worth pointing out that the sainted Alan Rusbridger, who is so keen to imply that the Guardian is above such dissembling, employed the journalist responsible for the Nightjack hack after he left The Times. Now I wonder why he did that? The only conclusion really is that journalists all lack a sense of morality, and the only difference between the tabs and the broadsheets is that the broadsheets are better at smug self-justifications. The Times: We lie in court, and we don’t resign when we do it. The Guardian: if you’ve lied in court, we’ll still employ you.

  • Tokyo Nambu says:

    “I think some measure of praise is due to The Times for coming clean about this”

    But they didn’t. They lied in open court when challenged. It was only after that lie was exposed that they have been forced to apologise. Horton probably can’t afford to take the matter further, but the idea that the Time is embarrassed in any way other than at being caught is laughable. A journalist lied. A legal advisor, presumably a solicitor, lied. And the editor of The Times lied, under oath, in court. Quite why the whole lot of them aren’t being done for perjury is a complete mystery, and their apology should be read in the context of their having got away with bare-faced lying. In a sane world, a major newspaper wouldn’t employ a liar as editor, but these are British newspapers, where lying is just part of what they do.

  • Pingback: End Of The Day Round-Up | Legal Cheek

  • Pingback: Rejoice, rejoice rejoice! - Page 31

  • Pingback: Law and Media Round Up – 29 October 2012 « Inforrm's Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>