21 December 2011
MR JAY:
Thank you, Mr Pilditch. It's Mr Flanagan next.
MR PADRAIC FLANAGAN
(affirmed)
Questions by MR JAY
MR JAY:
Make yourself comfortable, please, Mr Flanagan. Your full name?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Padraic John Flanagan.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Thank you. I hope you'll find in the bundle in front of you under tab 1 your witness statement, which is signed and dated 12 December of this year, and appended to it is a statement of truth. Is that right?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
It is.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Is this the evidence which you stand by, as it were?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I do.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You have been a journalist, you tell us, for 21 years. You followed a typical career path, if I may say so, through regional press and then you joined the national press, indeed the Daily Telegraph in the year 2000 where you have stayed ever since; is that right?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
The Daily Express.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Pardon me, the Daily Express. You now are a senior news reporter at the Daily Express, is that so?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
That's right.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You tell us in paragraph 2 that you were the third journalist sent by the Express to Portugal to cover this story. You remained there for more than a month. You visited Portugal four times, usually fortnightly spells, to cover the story. A lot of what you say has already been covered by the previous witness, but did you have any sources on the ground in Portugal which differed from those that Mr Pilditch was talking to us about?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I don't know all Mr Pilditch's sources, but I was checking this morning my records and I had between 50 and 60 names and numbers of people that I called regularly on this story. Not all of them in Portugal. Some of them, the extended families back in Britain, but there was a wide variety of sources that I used in Portugal.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
In relation to the Portuguese police, can we identify who your sources were? You had no one in the police itself, since they officially could not speak to you, is that so?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yeah. It was impossible to get any official comment from the police.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Right, so sources around the police, we've heard of two journalists and a translator. Were they the individuals who were effectively your sources as well?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Probably more than two journalists, I think. There were lots of TV, radio and newspaper crime specialists who were -- who we made contact with and became friends with, and we helped them on the British side of the story and they helped us on the Portuguese side of the story.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Right, but did they have contacts within the Portuguese police?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yes.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Thank you. Can I ask you, please, about specific stories you wrote. I think the first of these is paragraph 11, 25 October 2007, which is page 31664. You'll find this in the bundle you have probably under tab 4.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yeah.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
"Police want answers to 14 questions." This is dated 25 October 2007. Can we be clear who the source is for this story? The answer may be found seven lines from the bottom.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I think this story originated actually in one of the Portuguese newspapers and it was written by a journalist I became friends with and I called him up and asked him where he'd got it from and he said he was shown these 14 questions in a document that was to be sent over to British detectives, and said it was absolutely true. That's where it came from.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
So when you say "a source within the Policia Judiciaria" --
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yeah, that's via him, via the journalist.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
So the journalist who has written the piece in the Portuguese paper, that was his or her source, and then you're setting this out here in your piece; is that right?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yes, it is.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Can I ask you, about ten lines from the top of the story: "Investigators believe [do you have that?] that members of the party -- dubbed the Tapas Nine after the Spanish themed restaurant they were in when Madeleine disappeared -- may have been involved in the crime." Where did you get that from?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
From the same source.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
How was it put to you?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I was talking to him as I often did about the latest developments that he'd heard and, telling me about this dossier of questions, he also told me about -- that he thought the members of -- the friends that were with the McCanns at the time of the disappearance may have been -- may have had something to do with that.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Anything more specific or was it at that level of generality?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yeah, it was that general.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
How did you believe that this piece, this story, if at all, could be stood up if it ever came to litigation?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Well, it would be very difficult to do that. I think it needs to be said that I wasn't sort of working alone, as it were, in Praia da Luz, scratching around for something to send back. These stories were all the result of conversations with the news desk about the strength of them and the sources, and a view was taken whether to proceed or to drop it. I mean, I'm not trying to evade responsibility, but I had to make it clear to my superiors, you know, the strength of the story and whether it was something that they would want me to write up later in the day.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
So is this your evidence: you did make it clear to the news desk that you felt that it would be difficult to stand up this story if it were ever tested?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Well, I illustrate -- I don't think I would put it in those stark terms, because at the time, working in Portugal surrounded by every rival newspaper who were working on the same stories, it was my duty to tell my desk what the sources were and where the stories were coming from, but I didn't feel as though it was my sole decision to establish, you know, the -- whether I could stand up in a court of law and defend it.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
No. But in order to assist their decision, did you share your misgivings about the ability to stand this story up with the news desk or not?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
No. I think once you'd told them the sources and where it had come from, then they could draw their own conclusions.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Mm. How would they do that?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Well, by reading what I've written.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Right. So you felt that it would be obvious to the news desk, given that you had misgivings about being able to stand this story up, you needn't spell it out to the news desk, they would make the same deduction; is that the position?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Broadly. Working in Portugal, the first question you asked yourself wasn't: can I stand this up? It was: what can I find today? What's the best material that I can offer the news desk and keep up with my rivals and do what I'm being paid to do? Considerations of the law, you know, were always going to be further down the line that day for my superiors.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
That's a very frank answer, Mr Flanagan, but are you telling us that the predominant consideration, given all the pressures you were under to produce a story, was to produce really the best you could and then leave it to others to worry about the legal niceties?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Well, it's quite a stark way of putting it. You would be discussing with the news desk through the day what you were doing, what was happening in Portugal, what were the likely best lines of the day. I mean, bear in mind that although we're concentrating on single stories here, you know, it's highly likely that when I was writing this, I might have been writing a front page story and a spread inside the paper, so there would be an awful lot of material to work through. So it -- what I'm trying to say is that there were constant discussions and I felt that the desk were fully aware of what I was doing and the strength of the material.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
So judgments about whether to publish in the light of obligations under the PCC code, clause 1, the accuracy requirement, would be for others, not for you; is that what you're saying?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Ultimately, yes.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
But didn't you feel that you were under an obligation under the code and generally to, if I can put it in these terms, worry about the accuracy of the story?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yes, you would, but you'd also be conscious of trying to do the best that you could to stand up as much as you could, where you could, but, you know, working in a foreign country under their legal conditions proved very difficult.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Yes. I think that eloquently speaks to the difficulties you were under and demonstrated why it would be difficult, moreover, to stand up the story, but then there's the sort of anterior
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
why write the story at all?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
It would be quite a brave reporter to call the desk and say, "I'm not really sure about this, I'm not going to send anything back today".
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Yes.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Because --
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Sorry, please continue.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
-- I felt that they could see, if they had the copy, the strength of the material and they could take a view on it.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
We're interested in culture and practices. "It would take a very brave reporter". Are you able to elaborate on that a little bit for us, please, Mr Flanagan? It may be so obvious it goes without saying.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
As you mentioned before, the story was extraordinary, this snowball going down the incline, as you said. Bear in mind that every newspaper, TV, radio reporters were there, there was a huge appetite in the UK for this story and there was a huge appetite for this story on the news desk and the -- with the editor of the Daily Express.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
When it all went pear-shaped, if I can put it in that way, a letter before action, I think there was a claim form, it doesn't matter, there was a decision not to defend the case on liability. Were you surprised or not?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
No.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Because?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I think at the Express they're more likely to want to avoid massive legal bills and -- I just get the feeling that they're more likely to settle cases out of court rather than fight cases.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Even though the damages in this case were mega, weren't they? Okay. I'll ask you about one other piece, Mr Flanagan, at 31619, 22 January 2008. Do you have that one?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yes.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
"The manhunt by Madeleine investigators prompted by a drawing of a possible abductor is designed to divert suspicion from Kate and Gerry McCann, the Portuguese police believe. "Last night, sources in the Policia Judiciaria revealed reports of a dishevelled man lurking around Praia da Luz were investigated months ago and found to be groundless. "One stormed: 'The purpose of this latest exercise by the McCanns is the same as always. It's another diversionary tactic.'" So again the "sources in the PJ", that was the journalist, not a policeman; is that correct?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Well, it was a policeman source of the journalist.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Was this piece based on anything other than an article in the Portuguese press?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I think it was -- I can't recall exactly, but during the months that we were there a series of likenesses were produced, which always generated a series of stories, and this looks as though this is another release of a likeness presumably based on Gail Cooper's description to an FBI-trained artist. But, yeah, the retired PJ inspector, Moita Flores, was often on Portuguese TV and I think that would be where his quote came from.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
Did you feel under pressure to deliver? Almost a continual stream of this sort of story? Otherwise in one sense you weren't doing what was required of you?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yeah. For the Daily Express to send overseas, spend that money on a news operation in a foreign country, is considerable and you're sent there to produce stories. It's quite clear that's what you're there to do, rather than sort of investigate yourself and decide whether there's anything worth writing about.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You tell us in paragraph 19 of your statement there was almost -- or there was constant dialogue between the news desk and reporters. Did the news desk ever come back to you with this sort of message: "Either we or the editor is concerned about a particular piece; could you stand it up for us, please, explain the reliability of your source?" Was there ever that sort of conversation?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I don't remember a conversation like that, but there might have been.
QUESTION (Mr Jay):
You don't remember one?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I don't remember one.
MR JAY:
Yes. Those are all the questions I have for you.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I'd like to use the word I used before. These were clearly very fragile stories in the sense that it was all -- I used the phrase tittle-tattle, but information coming from somebody who was getting information from somebody else, who wasn't supposed to be saying anything anyway.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Yes.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
That's certainly right. You told Mr Jay that you had some concerns about that. Did you do anything at all to express concern that a lot of theorising was taking place, no solid fact, and this was a great risk?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I didn't raise it specifically. I didn't phone and ask someone and say, "Look, I'm really worried about this", but I think everybody was aware of the strength of these stories, how fragile they were. I think it's sometimes the case on crime stories that this kind of procedure takes place where there's supposition and theorising in the absence of any hard information being released. It's a kind of natural tendency to fill a vacuum, and with the Portuguese police's stance on speaking to the press, there was a very large vacuum there.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And you mentioned that all your competitors are there. But who takes the decision -- well, I suppose I can answer my own question. The decision as to what is right and what is not right is not yours; is that fair?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
It's partly mine, I think. I do -- I do have some responsibility, but, for instance, I can't write a story that I know to be a lie and claim to the news desk that it's true.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
No, I hope we'd agree about that.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
But, also, the news desk and the editor also have a key role.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I understand that, and I'm sure you're right. But you appreciate that I am looking at this phrase that we bounce about customs, practice and ethics all the time, and I'm just trying to grasp the nature of the problem. You've been sent out to Portugal, it's costing a lot of money. All your competitors are doing the same. There's enormous pressure, which you've told Mr Jay about, to file something, you want something that's interesting, that's going to command attention. Where does balance, fairness, propriety come into it all?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I'm not sure I can answer that.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Well, does it have a place at all?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I think it does, but --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I'm pleased you said that.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
-- it's very difficult on any given day to be able to look at a story, as we are now, in the whole. We know some things to be false, a lot of things to be false, that we didn't know at the time. I think what you try to do is faithfully and accurately report what you're finding out from people who know more about what's gone on than you do.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You see, one of the things you could have said in these articles, repeatedly, is, "This is an impossible job. The police won't talk to us, they're not permitted by law to, but for some unusual reason they're prepared to leak like a sieve to people they know, who will then tell us. How accurate all this is, who knows?"
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Well, there were critical reports of the Portuguese police. There's a convention that newspapers don't tend to write about their own problems, they don't write about journalism, they don't write about the challenges that reporters are facing to -- gathering stories. Maybe in the media sections of the broadsheets they will, but it's not saying --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
But don't you think -- and I don't edit a tabloid newspaper, indeed any newspaper, but don't you think that's itself a very substantial story? You all back in the UK want to know about this missing girl. We want to give it to you. We want to find out. And this is the problem we've got.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
Mm.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
And the result is that "Everything I say you must now take with a pinch of salt." Because you personally were taking it -- I'm not saying you didn't believe that you were being given genuine information, that's the honesty bit that you mentioned, but I rather gather from the thrust of what you say that you did not find this particularly comfortable, so you're saying that's not a story?
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I think it is a story, but then you're faced with the problem: what do you fill the paper with the next day?
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
But the one thing you don't want to fill the paper with, surely, is stuff that is terribly damaging to people and may be complete piffle.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
As I said, I think all you can do is the best that you can in the circumstances.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Yes.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
That's the dilemma
ANSWER (Flanagan):
And it's true that especially reporting on crime stories, you know, the effects on the families of victims is appalling. And I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the McCanns for adding to their hurt and distress through what I wrote. Only a week or two ago we had an advisory from the Dowlers reminding us about the effects of seeing a photograph of their murdered daughter in the paper every time somebody wrote about the deleted emails story, and it brings it home to you what a searing experience it must be to keep being reminded. So we are mindful that these stories can be incredibly distressing, but at the heart of the story it is a crime, a little girl went missing, and while I was out there, that was the focus.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
I understand. But it's not as though the problem is unique. I mean, one can look at what happened -- and I'm not in any sense asking you questions about it, but one could look at what happened to Mr Jefferies thereafter. And everybody goes like a train at a story, which is destructive. I have made it very clear that I am an absolute believer in freedom of expression, there's no question. But I am concerned to find a way of identifying balance, which might, I appreciate, mean that the story is not in such bright colours.
ANSWER (Flanagan):
I think that's a reason why we're all so interested to hear what you conclude.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
You're not alone. All right, thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed.
Labels:
2012,
Brian Kennedy,
Express,
Leveson Inquiry,
Madeleine McCann,
Metodo3,
Padraic Flanagan
