MR JAY:
The last witness is Mr Fagge, please.
MR NICHOLAS FAGGE
(sworn)
Questions by MR JAY
MR JAY:
Your full name, please, Mr Fagge?
ANSWER (Fagge):
It's Nicholas Hilton Fagge.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Thank you. You provided us with a statement which bears yesterday's date. It doesn't have a statement of truth on it, but that's not a criticism, Mr Fagge. Do you stand by this statement as your evidence?
ANSWER (Fagge):
I do. I don't think I have it with me. It's in the other bundle. Excuse me.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Do you not have a copy?
ANSWER (Fagge):
My statement is just there. Excuse me.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
That's all right.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Mr Fagge, dealing with your career, you started as a journalist after a career in advertising in 1996. You obtained your NCTJ qualification. You then worked in the local press in Camden and then via the National News Agency and Ferraris; you joined the staff at the Daily Express at the end of the year 2001, is that correct?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Correct.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You left the Express in August 2010 and you're now a staff news reporter at the Daily Mail?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Correct.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Thank you very much. You tell us in paragraph 2 your experience at the Express. You had covered a series of major news stories, the tsunami in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, criminal proceedings relating to the murder of Caroline Dickinson and various other high profile stories, is that so?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Correct.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You also speak French and Spanish, which was relevant, I think both languages, relevant to the Madeleine McCann case; is that so?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Correct.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You explain in your statement how you were involved in the Madeleine McCann story. First of all, you went to Morocco in September 2007 because you speak French and you were following up a lead there, I believe; is that right?
ANSWER (Fagge):
That's right, yeah.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
And then you went to Portugal. In Portugal, we've heard about sources close to the PJ, two journalists in particular, and a translator. Were your sources the same or different?
ANSWER (Fagge):
My sources certainly would be amongst those, as we all made friends with different people and there were different people there at different times, I certainly had two journalists I trusted and spoke to almost -- well, on a daily basis, as well as other people I spoke to more infrequently.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Yes. Looking at this at a reasonably high level of generality, because I think we've derived the picture from previous witnesses, did you share the concerns we've heard them express about the ability to stand these stories up if it ever came to litigation or something similar?
ANSWER (Fagge):
From the outset of my filing stories from Portugal, I'd always make the news desk aware of who the source of the story was, how much credibility we'd give to it, but ultimately said to them they had to make the decision whether or not they thought it was legally safe, and in fact on the top of every single story I ever filed from Portugal, I would write, "Please legal", as I'm sure my colleagues did as well. This is a reference to ensure the news desk pass the story to the lawyers working for the newspaper to determine whether it was legally safe or not to publish.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
But did you, regardless of the steps you took to get the matter covered by legal advice, did you have concerns about the ability of the Express to stand these stories up if it ever came to litigation? Given the nature of your sources.
ANSWER (Fagge):
In Portugal, I wouldn't be thinking about if it came to the High Court, in all honesty. I would be doing my best to verify the story as best as I could. I wouldn't be thinking about a potential libel case some time in the future. I think that's unlikely.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
But you would be concerned, of course, with clause 1 of the PCC code and the requirement of accuracy, wouldn't you?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Yes.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
And you'd also be concerned, wouldn't you, in more general ethical
terms, that your story should indeed be true, and if the matter had to
be tested, you would be able to substantiate your stories, wouldn't you?
ANSWER (Fagge):
I'd certainly verify the story as best as I could and try to be as accurate as I possibly could be, but, as you've heard before, you couldn't get the police to verify anything at all, therefore you'd have to rely on less credible sources because you'd have to talk to somebody to talk to somebody else.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Yes. This weakness in the evidence base, if I can describe it in those terms, was that a matter which you expressly communicated to the news desk, or did you cover it simply by the moniker "legal please" or words to that effect?
ANSWER (Fagge):
The working day would start about 8 o'clock in the morning, when you'd speak with the news desk, explain what the developments had been overnight, explain what stories the Portuguese papers were running, and you'd probably last speak with them about 8 o'clock in the evening. All through the day they knew exactly what was happening, you'd explain the strength of the stories, and if there were legal concerns, you'd explain them as well.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
So were you surprised when the matter, as it were, turned litigious in February 2008 and had to be resolved by a substantial payment to the McCanns?
ANSWER (Fagge):
No.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
And why not?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Because the editor at the time decided it was the only story he was interested in and put it on the front page almost regardless of how strong the story was.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Can I just understand that answer, please? Are you suggesting that he ran the story regardless of its truth or are you suggesting something different?
ANSWER (Fagge):
No, not of its truth, but the Madeleine story was on the front page of the Daily Express more than any other newspaper because he decided it would sell newspapers. It became an obsession of his. I don't know quite how -- what more to say.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):Okay, but in the evenings then over a beer in Portugal with your colleagues, seeing this obsession played out on the front pages of the Express, weren't you troubled by the direction in which this was going?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Yes.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Okay. We know this was a very big story, we know you've written other stories where the same difficulties haven't arisen, I trust. Was this the only occasion in which this sort of difficulty arose, or are there others?
ANSWER (Fagge):
I can't think of another situation similar to this.
MR JAY:
Unless it's thought helpful, I'm not going to go through the individual stories because it's the same --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
The same point.
MR JAY:
-- point. Thank you, Mr Fagge.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Well, you've heard what I've said to your colleagues. If you have any different answers to the questions I've asked, I'd be interested to hear them. It can't just be a question of sales, can it?
ANSWER (Fagge):
I think you have to ask the editor that, sir.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I might do. But in relation to a story like this, where you're hearing through several layers, to what extent do you feel it's right, as the journalist on the ground, to spell out perhaps in an article, perhaps some other way, the -- the word I have used is the fragility of what you're reporting. Or do you think it's just sufficient to say "legal"?
ANSWER (Fagge):
No, these would be conversations that I would have with the news editor of the day, or -- over a number of days. I explained the difficulty of establishing exactly what did happen in certain circumstances, the information I received or the new information I'd learnt about. This would be conversations with the news editor and the news desk in general. It wouldn't merit an article or even really a --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
But it is a -- maybe it isn't. I must be wary about seeking to write stories. It is a story, isn't it, how impossible it is to get information that's reliable? Or isn't it?
ANSWER (Fagge):
It is a story that was published in the Daily Express and I think a number of other papers about how incompetent the Portuguese police appeared, but Madeleine continued to be missing, the interest in the story remained very high, there were new developments each day, of which the newspaper and the readership were interested in.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
And the impact on the victims, that's unfortunate but there it is?
ANSWER (Fagge):
Yes. It's tragic.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Is it unfair of me -- and you're entitled to answer "yes" -- is it unfair of me to be concerned that after all that happened, then when we got to a similar high-profile case somewhat later, the press broadly act in a not dissimilar way in relation to Mr Jefferies?
ANSWER (Fagge):
I wasn't there.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I know.
ANSWER (Fagge):
You may take that view.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I think that's probably fair enough. Right, Mr Fagge, thank you very much indeed.
ANSWER (Fagge):
Thank you.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Thank you.
MR JAY:
Sir, that concludes the evidence for today. I should point out that the statements of Messrs Pilditch and Flanagan were made available on Friday, not yesterday. Mr Fagge's statement, which we've seen is dated yesterday's date, was necessarily only made available to the CPs yesterday, which was as soon as we obtained it.
Labels:
2012,
Brian Kennedy,
David Pilditch,
Express,
Leveson Inquiry,
Madeleine McCann,
Metodo3,
Nick Fagge
