Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE v Associated Newspapers Limited [2023] EWHC 2789 (KB)

“3. The Claimant’s case is that through its journalists and/or private investigators, blaggers or other third parties instructed on its behalf: (a) Associated widely and habitually carried out or commissioned illegal or unlawful information gathering activities for the purposes of obtaining, preparing or furthering the publication of articles in its newspapers … (“the Unlawful Acts”), and (b) Associated carried out or commissioned the same Unlawful Act for the purposes of targeting the Claimant, as set out in paragraphs … below, exploiting or misusing the information it obtained in relation to [him/her] as the product or direct result of these unlawful activities in stories which it then published as articles in its newspapers. The articles which the Claimant relies upon are set out in [a] Schedule… to these Particulars of Claim (“the Unlawful Articles”). 4. The Unlawful Acts which Associated commissioned or carried out included the following: the illegal interception of voicemail messages (“phone hacking”), the listening to and/or recording of live landline or analogue mobile telephone calls (“phone tapping”), the obtaining of private information through deception (such as telephone subscriber details, billing information, confidential mobile phone numbers and ex-directory landline numbers, bank or financial information and confidential medical information (“blagging”), the use or instruction of private investigators (also known as “search agents”), blaggers or other similar third parties or agents (“private investigators”) to commit these and other such unlawful information gathering acts (“private investigator work”) and the commissioning of burglaries or the breaking [into] and entering of private property in order to obtain private information (“burglary to order”). 5. As referred to throughout these Particulars of Claim, the Unlawful Acts were carried out on Associated’s behalf by a large number of private investigators, many of whom are now well-known for carrying out the same unlawful acts for other newspaper groups such as News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers… These private investigators were instructed by Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists, as well as commissioned or approved of by editorial executives and desk or department heads, many of whom are still employed by or working for Associated in senior positions. Unlawful Acts (such as blagging or phone-hacking) were also carried out by the journalists themselves. 6. Further, Associated deliberately concealed or covered up these Unlawful Acts both at the time (through the covert way in which they were carried out, the use of euphemistic language in payment requests and other documents, and the misleading presentation of ‘sources’ in the Articles) and then subsequently (including through false public denials by senior executives on its behalf at the Leveson Inquiry who are still employed by Associated) in order to avoid its wrongdoing being publicly exposed and to intentionally deprive the Claimant (and other victims) of knowledge of facts relevant to [his/her] rights or causes of action against Associated (“the Deliberate Concealment”). 7. If and insofar as necessary, the Claimant will rely upon this Deliberate Concealment, and such loss or destruction or relevant documents which has inevitably occurred during the period, or been caused by an intentional step in the Deliberate Concealment (as will be fully revealed upon disclosure), in support of [his/her] case that she is not and should not be statute barred from bringing [his/her] claims under section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980.”

“1. Unless the Claimants apply to the Ministers within [14] days of the court’s order and on notice to the Defendant to vary the restriction orders of The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson, chairman of The Leveson Inquiry, dated 26 April 2012 and 29 November 2012 made pursuant to s.19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 (“the Restrictions Orders”), the parts of the Particulars of Claim identified in the Confidential Schedule to the Witness Statement of Nadia Banno dated 5 December 2022 as being in breach of the Restriction Orders shall be struck out without further order. 2. In the event that the Claimants apply to the Ministers to vary the Restriction Orders as aforesaid, time for filing and service of the Acknowledgement of Service and Defence herein be extended until further order of the Court.”

“1. Pursuant to CPR 1.1, 3.1(2)(m) and/or s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, until further order to be made on the date of judgment hand-down on the Restriction Order Application and the Limitation Application (“judgment hand-down”), the following information shall not be referred to or disclosed during or in connection with the hearing of the Restriction Order Application and Limitation Application listed for 27-30 March 2023 (otherwise than in documents marked “Confidential” which would be for the eyes of the parties and Court only): a. the information in the paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim identified in Part A of the Confidential Schedule to this Order (“the Restricted Paragraphs”); and b. the name of the Online Publisher, which is set out also in Part A of the Confidential Schedule to this Order, or any matter likely to lead to its identification in connection with these proceedings. 2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the names of the [Anonymised Journalists] or any of them, or any matter likely to lead to their identification in connection with these proceedings, are to be withheld from the public at the hearing on 27-30 March 2023 and are not to be disclosed or published until further order to be made on the date of judgment hand-down. 3. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, until further order to be made on the date of judgment hand-down, there shall be no publication in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings of: a. the information in the Restricted Paragraphs and the name of the Online Publisher, or any matter likely to lead to its identification in connection with these proceedings, as withheld under paragraph 1 of this Order; or b. the names of the individuals or any of them or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in connection with these proceedings as withheld under paragraph 2 of this Order; or c. the Confidential Schedule to this Order SAVE THAT nothing in this Order shall prevent the publication of: (1) Any information contained in any public judgment of the Court in these proceedings. (2) Any information contained in any documents on the Court file which are open to public inspection without an order of the Court. 4. The parties, the Online Publisher and any media third parties are at liberty to apply to discharge or vary this Order, but any Application must be made by Application Notice. … 6. There shall be a further hearing on the Reporting Restriction Application on the date of judgment hand-down.”

“This report reveals evidence of systematic breaches in personal privacy that amount to an unlawful trade in confidential personal information. Putting a stop to this trade is its primary purpose.”

“… the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police; it is to consider the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct.”

“In due course documents received by the Inquiry will be uploaded to the Inquiry’s Document Management System (“DMS”) and each page shall be given a unique reference number (“URN”). The URNs will be provided to those, who are subject to the terms of suitable confidentiality undertakings, with authorised access to the DMS…”

“Any documents recording or relating to fees or expenses paid to private investigators, police, public officials, mobile phone companies or other with access to the same … in the period from 1 January 2005 up to the date of this notice.”

“… whether, to the best of your knowledge, your newspaper used, paid or had any connection with private investigators in order to source stories or information and/or paid or received payment in kind for such information from the police, public officials, mobile phone companies or others with access to the same; if so, please provide details of the numbers of occasions on which such investigators or other external providers of information. were used and or the amounts paid to them (NB. You are not required to identify individuals, either within your newspaper or otherwise)… If such investigators or other external providers of information were used, what policy/protocol, if any, was used to facilitate the use of such investigators or other external providers of information (for example, in relation to how they were identified, how they were chosen, how they were paid, their remit, how they were told to check sources, what methods they were told to or permitted to employ in order to obtain the information and so on)…”

“I ACKNOWLEDGE that all material provided to me by the Leveson Inquiry (“the Inquiry”) is confidential and, in consideration of the provision of that material to me, agree to take all necessary steps to preserve that confidentiality. I acknowledge that the material is provided to me solely for the purposes of assisting me in relation to my participation in the Inquiry and no other purpose. I UNDERTAKE to the Inquiry not to disclose, publish or pass on to any third party any document, witness statement, draft witness statement or other material supplied to me by the Inquiry or any of the information contained within that material, save with permission of the Inquiry. I FURTHER UNDERTAKE to keep all material supplied to me by the Inquiry in a secure place and to prevent access to it by any person not authorised by the Inquiry. I FURTHER UNDERTAKE to ensure that material and information supplied to me by the Inquiry is used solely for the purpose for the Inquiry and, at the conclusion of the Inquiry, or earlier if requested by the Inquiry, to return all the material and any copies of it to the Inquiry. I UNDERSTAND that this undertaking shall cease to apply to such material as may later be placed in the public domain by the Inquiry or which is lawfully placed into the public domain by a third party.”

“The Information Commissioner’s 2006 reports noted that virtually all newspapers, in common with banks, insurance companies, local authorities and solicitors, used the services of inquiry agents to obtain personal data and that steps needed to be taken to ensure that these services were being lawfully performed. For journalists, I believe the purpose of using these agencies was mainly to get hold of addresses and phone numbers quickly so that they could contact people with a view to checking facts, or providing the opportunity to comment, in accordance with their duties as responsible journalists. Until the Information Commissioner’s 2006 reports I was not personally aware of the extent to which our journalists were using search agencies… In anticipation of questions that would be raised by this Inquiry (and have been raised in the s.21 notice addressed to myself and others), ANL has attempted to find out how extensive the use of inquiry agents was in the period prior to the ban and in particular the nature and extent of our relationship with Steve Whittamore, who was the subject of the Information Commissioner’s Operation Motorman investigation in 2003. Our findings are set out in the witness statement of Liz Hartley…”

“I am disgusted by the revelations of phone hacking at the News of the World. By hacking into the mobile phones of Milly Dowler and the families of victims of crime, those responsible showed a disregard for the most basic standards of human conduct. Such actions, if proved, are flagrantly against the law. I unequivocally condemn the bribing of police and use of phone hacking, and I support sensible moves to ensure that such malpractices never occur again. But there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Self-regulation has been a success story. The News of the World’s activities should not be allowed to besmirch the whole British newspaper industry.”

“To the best of my knowledge no journalist employed by [Associated] has ever hacked into voicemail messages or intercepted phone calls, nor have they ever ‘computer hacked’… I have received assurances from my heads of department and managing editors that we do not pay police officers. On occasions we pay public officials for stories, although usually they will have left public service. It is not something I have or would rule out, provided I was satisfied that we were operating within the Editors’ Code and the law.”

“Although the [inquiry] agencies assured us they acted within the law, Motorman demonstrated that we could not always rely on such assurances. For that reason, [Mr Dacre] the Editor in Chief banned all use of external search agencies in April 2007 with immediate effect. Since 2007 we have approved the use of two subscription tracing services… and The Mail on Sunday also uses a researcher to support The Mail on Sunday’s two staff reporters based in the US. As far as I am aware the rules we imposed have always been observed on The Mail on Sunday.”

“I have never been asked to advise on the legality of phone hacking or computer hacking. I would be very surprised indeed if any of our editorial staff had any doubts about the illegality of such activity. I am not aware of any phone hacking activity having taken place within [Associated] and no such allegations have been made by any person. Heads of editorial departments and key journalists have denied any knowledge of phone hacking. Nonetheless, in view of the public concern about phone hacking by the News of the World, we decided to search our financial records for any mention of names of companies and individuals such as Glenn Mulcaire who have been linked with allegations of phone hacking. Our accounts department has confirmed that no such record exists of any payments having been made to such persons.”

“To the extent that ANL journalists who have been named in any of the documents we have been shown by the ICO are still employed by [Associated], I have arranged for Mr Young [an in-house solicitor at Associated] to meet them to see if they are in a position to confirm whether or not they instructed Mr Whittamore to ‘blag’ any information they were seeking to obtain and what the purpose of getting the information was. At the time of preparing this witness statement, that process is ongoing, but the evidence so far strongly suggests that the reference to ‘blags’ in Mr Whittamore’s notes should be treated with considerable caution. One of the journalists to whom Mr Young has spoken and who is said to have requested a ‘blag’ has told him that she only ever used Mr Whittamore to obtain addresses and telephone numbers; that she never asked him to use subterfuge and never expected him to do so; that he never suggested to her that he had used such methods or intended to do so; and that she remembers that he used to press her to buy other pieces of information from him which he had already obtained for other clients. Similar accounts have been provided to Mr Young by other journalists.”

“The Mail on Sunday utterly refutes Hugh Grant’s claim that they got any story as a result of phone hacking. In fact in the case of the story Mr Grant refers to the information came from a freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to Jemima Khan. Mr Grant’s allegations are mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media.”

“Hugh Grant made extraordinary claims yesterday that the Mail on Sunday may have hacked his phone to obtain a story about his relationship with Jemima Khan. Last night the newspaper ‘utterly refuted’ the allegations made by the actor during two-and-a half-hours of evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.”

“Yesterday’s appearance before the Leveson inquiry by millionaire actor Hugh Grant – who throughout his career has been represented by publicity experts promoting his life and times – revealed him to be a man consumed by hatred for a media which over the years, as well as carrying flattering articles on him, has also reported on his colourful and, many say, unedifying love life. There are two important things which this paper’s readers need to know about Mr Grant’s utterly specious allegations. One: The Mail papers do NOT hack phones and our sister paper, The Mail on Sunday, has unequivocally refuted his claim that they secured a story about him as a result of this practice…”

“I wish to make clear that this explanation given by The Mail on Sunday cannot be correct since the first I heard about any ‘plummy voiced’ woman calling Hugh, or anything similar, was when I read it in the Mail on Sunday. I therefore could not have spoken to anyone about such matters prior to the article, because I knew nothing about it.”

“After Mr Grant voiced the phone-hacking allegation in November, The Mail on Sunday issued a statement describing it as ‘mendacious smears’. Miss Hartley told Lord Justice Leveson: ‘I think if you are going to make a serious allegation and you’re leading a campaign against the media, which Mr Grant is doing, you should take care over what you say.’ I think if you’re going to make what are going to be widely published allegations you ought to be careful. And if you choose to make allegations, which he’s perfectly entitled to do, it should come as no surprise when those are very robustly defended. Miss Hartley told the inquiry that she had warned the actor after he publicly accused Associated Newspapers of being involved in phone-hacking several months before he gave evidence to the inquiry. ‘In an endeavour to be of assistance and helpful and to avoid mistakes being made with serious consequences. I spoke to his representative and explained our position to him and followed it up with an email’ she said.”

“... I don’t want to bore you, but I do want to stress that this was ten years ago and it was a system being used by everybody. But from what we know now, I would accept there was a prima facie case that Whittamore could have been acting illegally. I don’t accept that this is evidence that our journalists were actively behaving illegally. We have to know the facts, what it related to and whether it actually was provided, whether the information was actually provided.”

“… let me say as clearly and slowly as I can: I have never placed a story in The Daily Mail as a result of phone hacking that I knew came from phone hacking. I know of no cases of phone hacking. Having conducted a major internal enquiry, I’m as confident as I can be that there’s no phone hacking on The Daily Mail. I don’t make that statement lightly, and no editor, the editor of The Guardian or The Independent, could say otherwise. … I can be as confident as any editor, having made extensive inquiries into this newspaper’s practices and held an inquiry, that phone hacking was not practised by The Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday. You know that because I gave my unequivocal, unequivocal assurances earlier this week.”

“Yes, I can be very confident because these journalists are journalists of integrity, we’ve used them in our group for years … I am not going to speak for other newspapers. I will speak for [Associated] and I’ve told this Inquiry, I cannot be any more unequivocal, that all my enquiries and all the evidence I received, and having spoken to the editor of my group: our group did not hack phones, and I rather resent your continued insinuations that we did.”

“…the 4 o’clock news came on the BBC and the headline was as follows: ‘Another major newspaper group has been dragged into the phone hacking scandal. Actor Hugh Grant has accused The Mail on Sunday – Associated Newspapers’ Mail on Sunday of hacking phones.’ It was a terrible smear on a company I love. We had to do something about it. I discussed it with The Mail on Sunday’s editor what our response was. A long, convoluted press statement was being prepared. I was deeply aware – and he was deeply aware – that you had to rebut such a damaging allegation… and we agreed on a form of words: ‘It was a mendacious smear’. Let me explain why I feel it was a mendacious smear. You will have read – you have already interviewed [Ms Hartley] on this for a considerable amount of time. Our witness statements have made clear that Associated is not involved in phone hacking and we’ve denied phone hacking in this instance, anyway, specifically.”

“… what we decided to do was to interrogate our financial systems by conducting a search for payments made either to Mr Mulcaire or his company, or indeed to anybody who had been named in conjunction with phone hacking or associated with him or any other names he may have used, to see whether we had records of payments to them as a good way of trying to double-check that what we were being told was accurate. And those searches resulted in confirmation that no payments to those people had been made and that’s been a continuing process.”

“As you may be aware, the Inquiry is now in the process of publishing outstanding exhibits on the website. I have attached a list of documents that the Inquiry intends to publish and I note that your letter of 25 October states that you had redacted these prior to providing them. I have not seen any further requests for redactions or s.19 applications in relation to these documents. However, I would be grateful if you could confirm that you are content for these to now be published.”

“I note your comments regarding the remaining documents, however the Inquiry is unable to agree to a blanket request that these be withheld pursuant to s.19. The Inquiry will consider applications pursuant to s.19 for individual documents and I would therefore be grateful if you could set out an individual request for each document that you wish to be withheld and the reason for this… The Inquiry may then consider each document on an individual basis...”

“They contain information relating to ANL’s business and financial operations and procedures which its competitors could use to their advantage.”

“… conceded … that [the Inquiry] could proceed on the basis that no positive case was to be mounted by them that the Motorman material did not reveal prima facie evidence of breaches by journalists of the DPA …”

“6.1 … ICO investigation officers and an in-house lawyer analysed the source material collated as part of Operation Motorman. They documented some 13,343 transactions, or individual requests for information made of Mr Whittamore. These transactions were segregated by staff of the ICO into three separate categories in terms of their evidential value. Of these, the ICO took the view that some 5,025 were actively investigated as part of Operation Motorman and positively known to constitute a breach of the DPA. More specifically, and put somewhat more carefully, it was the view of a lawyer employed by the ICO with extensive involvement in the prosecutions that the evidence in these cases would have been sufficient to lead to conviction. A number of the requests in this category included PNC requests, friends and family requests and some ex-directory requests. 6.2 A further 6,330 requests represented occupancy searches and are thought to have been information obtained from telephone service providers. The ICO considered that the obtaining of this information was likely to amount to breaches of the DPA; however, the nature of the transactions was not sufficiently known or understood for these to be characterised as a positive breach of the DPA, rather than probably illicit transactions. Some 1,988 of the transactions were considered to lack sufficient identification or understanding of how the information had been obtained to determine whether they represented illicit transactions. The first category of transactions only was included with the Parliamentary Reports. 6.3 Overall, it is not surprising that the Core Participants made the concessions recorded under paragraph 3.3 above: a detailed examination of many individual examples would, in my judgment, undeniably have established that this was the very lowest at which it could be put. For reasons which I well understand, the ICO would argue that the concession does not go far enough. Without condemning any journalist (none of whom were ever even interviewed by the ICO), it is sufficient for me to conclude that, at least in part, what has been revealed by some of the Operation Motorman evidence demonstrates an attitude to compliance with the law relating to data protection which can only be described as cavalier, if not worse: it is certainly revealing of what, at that time at least, were the practices of parts of the press…”

“6.9 [Associated]… placed before the Inquiry material which sought to indicate that Mr Grant’s speculations were both illogical and without evidential basis…. For reasons discussed below, I do not accept the propositions advanced by [Associated] but it is very important also to make it clear that neither do I conclude that The Mail on Sunday or any journalist employed by it knowingly used material for this story which had been sourced by phone hacking... … 6.11 … I make it clear that I accept Mr Dacre’s evidence that he never placed a story in The Daily Mail (or permitted one to be placed) which he knew came from phone hacking…”

“No witness statement provided to the Inquiry whether voluntarily or under compulsion, nor any exhibit to any such statement, nor any other document provided to the Inquiry as part of the evidence of the witness (not otherwise previously in the public domain) shall be published or disclosed, whether in whole or in part, outside the confidentiality circle comprising the Chairman, his assessors, the Inquiry Team, the Core Participants and their legal representative prior to the maker of the statement giving oral evidence to the Inquiry or the statement being read into evidence, or summarised into evidence by a member of the Inquiry Team as the case may be without the express permission of the Chairman…”

“Prior to its publication on the Inquiry website, no witness statement provided to the Inquiry whether voluntarily or under compulsion, nor any exhibit to any such statement, nor any other document provided to the Inquiry as part of the evidence of the witness (not otherwise previously in the public domain) shall be published or disclosed whether in whole or in part, outside the confidentiality circle comprising of the Chairman, his assessors, the Inquiry Team, the Core Participants and their legal representatives…”

“3. The reason for the Order is not an unjustified exercise of power, intended to control the operation of a free press; it is described in the fourth recital to the order as a consequence of the view that without express permission: ‘… it is conducive to the fulfilment of [my] terms of reference and in the public interest that witness statements provided to the Inquiry should not be published before they are put into evidence by their maker at the Inquiry, or read into evidence, or summarised into evidence by a member of the Inquiry team as the case may be…’ 4. Why is that so? It is important that the Inquiry obtain the benefit of the views of core participants as to questions that should be asked of witnesses for which purpose it is critical that they have advance sight of the statements. To allow a core participant to take advantage of early sight of the statements would be unfair to those who are not core participants. Furthermore, the effect of disclosure in breach of the Order will be to generate a public debate about what the witness intends to say, doubtless with critical comment and unstructured assertion. That disrupts the fair presentation of the evidence and is unfair to the witness who is likely to find him or herself responding to the press before having had the chance to explain the evidence in public to the Inquiry. Neither is very much being required of those who have had sight of the statements. Usually, it is only a matter of days or perhaps a week before the witness is due to given evidence that the evidence will be published to core participants. As soon as the evidence has been given, the statement is published and it is then open to whomsoever wishes to say whatever they wish about it. The modest restriction covering the days between disclosure and presentation of evidence is, in my judgment, a fair balance which does not represent an unreasonable restriction on the press.”

“Restrictions on access to information in evidence and documents which the Chairman considers to be conducive to the Inquiry fulfilling its terms of reference or to be necessary in the public interest under section 19(3)(b) of the 2005 Act (‘the Act’) have been made in the following ways: 1. Personal information in evidence and documents has been redacted from published material. This is also in compliance with responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998. This information includes names and contact details of all officials (excluding Special Advisors) believed to be below Senior Civil Servant (SCS) grade. Where redactions of personal information are the only redactions made to evidence or a document, these do not appear in the Schedule. 2. The Inquiry has restricted access to other information in disclosed and published material by redacting such information as the Chairman considers appropriate under s.19(3)(b) having regard in particular to (a) any risk of harm or damage, including potential prejudice to criminal investigations and prosecutions and damage caused by disclosure of commercially sensitive information, that could be avoided or reduced by any such redaction; (b) any conditions as to confidentiality subject to which a person acquired information given to the Inquiry; (c) the extent to which not making any particular redaction would be likely: (i) to cause delay or to impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the Inquiry; or (ii) otherwise to result in additional cost (whether to public funds or to witnesses or others); 3. The Inquiry has withheld in their entirety such material as the Chairman considers appropriate under s.19(3)(b) having regard to (a) any risk of harm or damage, including potential prejudice to criminal investigations and prosecutions and damage caused by disclosure of commercially sensitive information, that could be avoided or reduced by withholding the material; (b) any conditions as to confidentiality subject to which a person acquired information given to the Inquiry; (c) the extent to which not making any particular redaction would be likely: (i) to cause delay or to impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the Inquiry; or (ii) otherwise to result in additional cost (whether to public funds or to witnesses or others); IT IS ORDERED that until further order or Ministerial variation or revocation: (1) There shall not be any disclosure or publication of any of the redacted material within the evidence or documents disclosed or published by the Inquiry, or of the withheld material. This includes personal information referred to in paragraph 1 above and the material set out in the Schedule annexed to this Order. (2) This Order is made under s.19(2)(b) of the Act and binds: (1) all persons including all witnesses and core participants to the Inquiry and their legal representatives; (2) all companies whether acting by themselves or their servants, agents, directors, officers, or in any other way. (3) Any person affected by this order may apply in accordance with section 20 of the Act to vary this Order.”

“Also withheld: Various documents and other material without reference numbers, including but not limited to, confidential documents and other confidential and sensitive information.”

“The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court – (a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; (b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings …”

“… [It] is trite law that the English Limitation Acts bar the remedy and not the right; and, furthermore, that they do not even have this effect unless and until pleaded. Even when pleaded, they are subject to various exceptions, such as acknowledgment of a debt or concealed fraud, which can be raised by way of reply.”

“The authorities therefore make clear that in the context of summary judgment the court is by no means barred from evaluating the evidence, and concluding that on the evidence there is no real (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success. It will of course be cautious in doing so. It will bear in mind the clarity of the evidence available and the potential for other evidence to be available at trial which is likely to bear on the issues. It will avoid conducting a mini-trial. But there will be cases where the Court will be entitled to draw a line and say that - even bearing well in mind all of those points - it would be contrary to principle for a case to proceed to trial.”

“(1) … where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either— (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or (c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.”

“… there will be cases… where discovery of the relevant facts involves a process over a period of time as pieces of information become available. In such cases it may be difficult to identify the precise point of time at which a claimant exercising reasonable diligence could have discovered enough, either to plead a claim or (as the case may be) to begin embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of proceedings. In some cases identification of that point of time may be critical. In others, such as the present, it may be unnecessary to identify it with precision. Nevertheless the uncertainty to which this exercise may give rise is inherent in the section.”

“[They] are ordinary English words, which ought to be capable of being interpreted according to their natural and ordinary meaning in their context and in the light of the statutory purposes, which is to extend the primary limitation period in cases where the defendant’s conduct has prevented the claimant from realising that she has a claim. A judge ought to be able, having ascertained the facts, to decide whether there is a relevant fact which has been deliberately concealed. That ought not to be a complicated question.”

“… limitation begins to run in a deliberate concealment case when the claimant recognises that it has a worthwhile claim, and that a worthwhile claim arises when a reasonable person could have a reasonable belief that (in a case of this kind) there had been a [wrong]…”

“But it does not necessarily follow that the section as a whole should be narrowly interpreted. It should be given its natural and ordinary meaning without a predisposition to interpret it either narrowly or broadly.”

“… the legal test to be applied as regards s.32(1), following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gemalto…, is whether before the Applicable Date the Duke knew facts, or could with reasonable diligence have known facts, that would have led a reasonable person to conclude that there was a worthwhile claim, in the sense that such a person would have confidence to embark on the preliminaries to issuing a claim. It is not necessary to have confidence that the claim would succeed, to have the evidence to prove it, or even necessarily to be able to plead it at that stage, before further investigation. It is not necessary for every essential fact that has been concealed to have been discovered. However, if the claim that could be brought would then be struck out, it was not a worthwhile claim.”

“In around mid-2021, I came forward to provide assistance to the Claimants who are bringing these claims by explaining the types of work I did for the Mail titles, the journalists who instructed me and their targets. This includes the information which I understand is referred to in their Particulars of Claim about the work that I did… It irked me to watch the Leveson Inquiry and hear executives and senior figures from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday deny that their reporters and editors knew what they were asking me to do was unlawful. I know they did. A number of those journalists who used my services, and who knew only too well that the information I provided for their stories had been obtained unlawfully…”

“During my time as an undercover operative, I heard [PI1] boast about the unlawful work he did for The Mail newspapers. This involved phone tapping (meaning the interception of live telephone calls), computer and phone hacking, bribing police officers and a whole range of other unlawful activities, including burglaries to order. [PI1] liked to boast about the information he could get. ‘We can get the Queen’s medical records’, he once said. From what I saw of his operations I firmly believed that nothing in terms of private information was beyond [PI1] and [his organisation’s] reach using illegal means. [PI1] and his business partner [PI2] admitted to me frequently that they did work for The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. By work, I mean selling to Mail title journalists their regular PI services such as hacking and blagging, as well as tips and story leads which they got hold of using their usual methods. [PI1] boasted that he also carried out landline tapping and burglaries to get information for the Mail titles. I also remember him talking about doing electronic surveillance and paying police officers for the Mail titles… I also know about [PI4] a corrupt policeman who left the force and became a private investigator. Like [PI1], he specialised in selling information to the Mail and other newspapers from corrupt, serving officers… I got to know [PI4] during this period. I believe, from my recollection of conversations with [PI1] and [PI2], that [PI4] also targeted Doreen Lawrence and the investigations into her son’s murder. I began to help these Claimants in 2022 by providing them with the information I have mentioned about the activities which [PI1] (and [PI4]) carried out for the Mail titles. I did this because I have always believed that [PI1’s] corrupt relationship with The Mail titles, involving the police, was a key element which has never been properly investigated. I raised [PI1’s] work for newspapers with my police handlers three times, and it was covered up.”

“I was a private investigator working for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday for over 20 years, from the early 1990s until at least 2013. From around 1999 onwards, most of the stuff that I did was illegal. Over this time, I estimate, based on my knowledge of my sources of income, that I was paid around $1m in total (or several hundred thousand pounds in sterling), to target hundreds of people directly by Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists… I carried out work for both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday being primarily commissioned or instructed by the journalists [J13] and [J65] at the Mail on Sunday and [J24] at the Daily Mail…”

“[PI1] confirmed that he had done more things for The Daily Mail and [J66] aimed at secretly stealing information about me and the investigations into Stephen’s murder. My landlines had been tapped, my voicemails hacked, my phone bills illegally extracted using deception which I now understand is called blagging, covert electronic surveillance was put on me including at a café that I used to go to when I wanted to talk to people privately, and corrupt payments had been made to police officers… For the first time I learnt that these men and other corrupt police officers had received payments from The Daily Mail both directly through [J66] and other journalists and indirectly through [PI1] and his private investigator company for information about Stephen’s murder. I could not believe what I was hearing and that The Daily Mail and [J66] were mixed up in all of this. It was an idea that was so far removed from my thinking.”

“[PI1] was obsessed with the Stephen Lawrence murder, and the police investigation into it throughout the entire time I was undercover, and he spoke about it frequently. The Mail titles wanted information about it and about Doreen Lawrence herself and so it was good business for him. [PI1] was also obsessed with finding out if Doreen Lawrence had been infiltrated by left-wing groups and used his ‘research services’ and payments to his corrupt police officers to find out as much as he could. Information like that was of interest to TheMail. [PI1] discussed his targeting of Doreen Lawrence, her family and the murder investigation with me many times in face-to-face meetings in his office… I know that he used his clearly unlawful ‘research services’ – such as phone tapping, obtaining phone bills, accessing bank accounts, car registration details, corrupt payments to cops and other confidential data unlawfully gathered – as part of operations against the Lawrence family. [PI1] used his ‘research services’ either when specifically commissioned by The Mail, or in order to obtain fresh tips or leads to sell to them… I also know about [PI3], a corrupt policeman who left the force and became a private investigator. Like [PI1], he specialised in selling information to The Mail and other newspapers from corrupt, serving police officers. [PI3] was a well-known figure within the police community whilst I was a serving police officer. I got to know [PI3] during this period. I believe, from my recollection of conversations with [PI1] and [PI2], that [PI3] also targeted Doreen Lawrence and the investigations into her son’s murder.”

“… never once occurred to me that a newspaper might be involved, that they had links and relationships with such men, that they were spying on me and stealing my information, accessing my bank accounts, invading my privacy, that they were seeking information about Stephen to sell and not because they cared, and that it was [J66] and TheDaily Mail who kept us so close, and who we thought were our friends.”

“She’s not the enemy, I reminded myself. She’s a victim. Whatever she has said about the Met was probably justified. As long as I didn’t let her down, I figured it would be OK. This was my investigation. I was in complete control. When I saw a record of our meeting splashed all over the Daily Mail the following day, I realised I was in control of nothing. It took about 15 minutes from that newspaper arriving on front door steps all over the country before we got a call from one of the lawyers acting for the family. ‘Same old Met, leaking everything to make yourselves look good’. I was horrified that Mrs Lawrence thought I’d have done something like that… Now this had happened, she had to think I was as full of hot air as the rest. How was I going to prove otherwise? I was also shocked because the Mail had printed secret information. On reflection, we could have been victims of the phone hacking scandal but I had no idea how such information could have leaked at the time…”

“The first I had any knowledge of [Associated’s] illegal activities against me was just before Christmas 2020. A whistle-blower called Gavin Burrows had come forward confessing to the terrible things he had done on the instruction of The Mail on Sunday newspaper. I spoke to my former boyfriend, Hugh Grant, and told him I was instructing lawyers to find out more about what could be done. I first got involved in Hugh’s world of exploring hacking and dark crimes committed in the shadows of British journalism in 2015. He told me around January that year that there was proof that the Mirror had hacked me and that I should consider taking action. At that time, I was filming and very busy with my personal life and business life. I didn’t have time, which is always a scarce thing for me. But I realised that it was important to him. That was the first conversation I had with Hugh about hacking in relation to me and my first involvement with anything to do with it. It was all about the Mirror and nothing at all to do with The Mail… I sued the Mirror shortly after that first conversation with Hugh. They settled my claim in November 2016…”

“It is therefore somewhat surprising that Ms Hurley now states [in her witness statement] that she was only ‘aware of vague rumblings of foul play by journalists at Murdoch’s papers’before 2015 and that while she had been contacted by the police about phone hacking in 2011, they informed her that ‘my name was not on the list and that no action was required’and she believed ‘none of it had anything to do with me’.”

“We worked hard and slowly but surely and throughout the course of 2021, details began to emerge of the litany of crimes Mr Burrows had committed on The Mail’s behalf. And it was then, during those investigations, that I discovered the landlines of my home phones had been tapped and tape recordings taken of my live telephone conversations for The Mail on Sunday. I was devastated.”

“It transpired that landline tapping was Mr Burrows’ unique trade selling point and that it was a routine and essential part of the service he offered to The Mail on Sunday from a menu of unwholesome things. He had a former military and British Telecom phone man on his payroll fulltime, who engineered the weekly landline taps on his victims. This man would use cassette recorders and insert them into the landline cables of green BT junction box cabinets on the street. Sometimes he also put them in manholes. The cassette recorders were always hidden and carefully and deliberately concealed to evade any sweeps ordered by suspicious victims. Mr Burrows confirmed that not one cassette recorder or landline tap was ever found or identified by The Mail on Sunday’s quarry and that he and his accomplice had laughed every time a suspecting victim ordered a sweep, found nothing and had thought it safe to talk. Hugh and I, and many others, were victims of this and I thought about the time I had asked BT to sweep my lines and they had confirmed everything was fine and I had thought my phone was safe and secure to talk. I felt sickened when I heard how Mr Burrows knew details of my private conversations and how they had been recorded and put on tapes that were then biked back to [Associated’s] newspaper for £2,000 plus, in cash, hidden in an envelope. But there was more. I learnt that Mr Burrows had placed a sticky window mic on my home window to record my conversations inside my London house. I learnt that he had hacked, taped and bugged me a huge number of times. That he had also stolen my financial information, my travel information, and my medical information when I was pregnant with Damian between 2001 and 2002 and that I was a target of focus at this time because of issues with Damian’s father. All at the behest of people at [Associated’s] newspapers.”

“The cumulative effect of this episode was to leave me in no doubt that Associated denied phone hacking or any other unlawful information gathering vociferously. Given Associated’s denials, and Lord Leveson’s report, I did not have any basis to take the matter further and without waiving privilege, I was told the same by my lawyer.”

“I am aware that the Particulars of Claims in these six claims allege that [Associated] instructed or commissioned me and/or my various companies (such as Intelligence Europe, Rhodes Associates, Assured Legal Investigations) to conduct unlawful information gathering on [Associated’s] behalf. This is false. I set out below the relevant paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim that I have discussed with the solicitors for the Defendant and my response to them.”

“(a) 9.7.4 Mr Burrows carried out work for The Mail on Sunday from about 2000 to 2007, being primarily commissioned by [J53] of The Mail on Sunday, but whose unlawfully obtained information was provided to other Mail on Sunday journalists for use in articles, as well as The Daily Mail. During the course of his work, he was asked to target a number of high-profile individuals such as Hugh Grant, Carole Middleton (for private information about Prince William and her daughter, Kate), Elizabeth Hurley, Ken Livingstone (whilst Mayor of London), Peter Mandelson (the Labour peer and former Secretary of State), Brian Paddick (former Deputy Assistant MPS Commissioner) and Simon Bates (the former BBC Radio 1 DJ).’ (i) This is false. I was never instructed or commissioned by [J53], The Mail on Sunday or The Daily Mail to conduct unlawful information gathering on their behalf. I was also never asked to target or conduct unlawful information gathering on any of the high profile individuals listed above by [J53], The Mail on Sunday or The Daily Mail. (b) 9.7.5 As part of providing such services for The Mail on Sunday, Mr Burrows also sub-contracted Unlawful Acts to several other private investigators, blaggers or similar third parties: for example specialist blaggers called [name redacted] (whose specialism was blagging financial information) and [name redacted] (whose specialism was obtaining private telephone numbers), various others for medical blagging, and a former BT and army officer (whose specialism was hardwire landline tapping or live landline interception and recording). (i) This is false. I was not instructed or commissioned by The Mail on Sunday or The Daily Mail to conduct any unlawful information gathering and therefore I did not sub-contract such work to others. (c) 9.7.6 The Claimant will refer to the fact that Mr Burrows was regularly paid by [J53] and The Mail on Sunday (especially for landline tapping and vehicle bugging) in cash, which was left at a drop-off location in Regent’s Street in London, but sometimes through bank transfer or bankers’ draft to one of Mr Burrows’ corporate aliases. (i) This is false. I repeat my answers above and therefore, neither I nor my companies received payment in cash, bank transfer or bankers’ draft from [J53], The Mail on Sunday or The Daily Mail.”

“I was not instructed or commissioned by [J53], The Mail on Sunday or The Daily Mail to conduct unlawful information gathering on [Claimant’s name] or his/her associates.”

“Between 2000 to 2005, when [J53] left The Mail on Sunday to work for [name redacted], I pretty much always had something on the go with him and The Mail on Sunday. As I’ve already said, [J53] would instruct me at least once a month. Each job would usually be big, a ‘case story’ and go on for a while. He’d call me and say, ‘Can you do your thing?’ By that he’d be expecting hardwire tapping of landline telephone lines and the tapes of live tapped phone calls, voicemail hacking of mobiles and landline answering services, itemised bills of telephone numbers (mobile or landline), credit card bills, financial checks, medical checks, restaurant bookings, travel arrangements (flights/hotels were always top on the agenda), people’s birthdays ([J53] was always interested in those – the full works on whatever or whoever he was interested in. He rarely called for just an ex-directory number. He always typically wants a full-on case enquiry. [J53] and I always communicated by phone – mobile or landline. My reports to him were always faxed (with my invoice attached to the front). If I was on a job for him, we would touch base every day by phone. Whenever I changed my phone number, which I did once every couple of months for security, I would phone [J53] and leave him a voice message with my new contact details. On the odd occasions when I couldn’t get hold of [J53], because he was out of the office, [J53] would tell me to leave a voice message with someone else, but it was always brief. I remember dealing with a guy maybe called [J47] who ran the [redacted] at The Mail on Sunday, but again that was brief. [J53] introduced us over a lunch in a pub in Chelsea. The purpose of the lunch had been to pitch for business, but it never came of anything as he left the paper shortly afterwards… My main contact at The Mail on Sunday was always [J53]. Although I can’t see how other people wouldn’t have known about me and what I did for him. [J53] would have had to explain sources for stories he instructed me on to the Editor and what the cash and other payments to me were for.”

“I did a lot on Liz Hurley for [J53]. Lots of landline taps on her home phone and voicemail hacking. Also lots of financial checks, travel blagging and medicals when she was having her baby. That was big news at the time because of all the stuff with her ex, Steve Bing. Everybody including [J53] wanted a piece of her. I recently read through some Liz Hurley articles in The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and recognised some of them to have hacked product in that was done by me, especially around this time. There’s one article in The Daily Mail about Liz giving Elton some trees as a present after she stayed at his place in Windsor… That was a hardwire tap by me on her landline and hacking Elton’s gardener. I actually got a lot of info about Elton and his husband David from Liz’s landline and phones. Elton didn’t have a mobile phone and we never knew which landline he was going to use. So we got to him by hacking and tapping the people around him – especially Liz because they were really close. … On Liz, I remember [J53] ringing me up to put a window mic on her home window in London. It looked like a sticker – plasticky, around ¼ inch in size. They usually give 24 hours listening time. Overall, I hacked, tapped and bugged Liz a huge number of times. She (like Hugh Grant) was a huge earner for me. I could get an itemised phone bill for Liz and Hugh and sell each one for £5k, much more than the average price on my menu. I also definitely targeted a lot of the people around Liz…”

“I targeted hundreds, possibly thousands of people during my time working with [J53] at The Mail on Sunday. There pretty much wasn’t a week that went by during that time when I didn’t have a hardwire tap on somebody, on instruction from [J53]. I look back now and feel really bad about what I did. I didn’t give it much thought then. It was just survival, making money, routine and part of the job. But now, I’ve had time to reflect and think, to appreciate how what I did has hurt a lot of people. I’ve also had time to reflect and think about the kind of person I want to be. Which is not that person I was before. I really want to say sorry to everyone I targeted and for them to know I never meant any harm. I want to do everything I can to help them and to make amends for my actions. I hope this statement and my telling the truth is a good start.”

“This was the first we knew of what [Associated] had done. Gavin Burrows even had disturbing and convincing details about us, things that no one outside of our home could know. David called lawyers and commissioned investigations. We soon received information about how Gavin Burrows had also hacked and tapped two of our key people for The Mail, our gardener and my right-hand man… whose mobile phone I used to make and receive calls and messages when David and I were not together… That was when we discovered that we might have a claim against the Defendant for these activities.”

“… Elton and I had received a similar call… That time it was about the Mirror and evidence she had found that the Mirror had hacked us. I remember not believing her and thinking there was no way this could have happened. Elton and I had never been contacted by the police about hacking or private investigators, or about any newspaper breaking the law. In fact, nobody ever mentioned this as a possibility to us before and we had never considered it as one ourselves… Even when lawyers showed us information that calls had been made to my mobile phone by Mirror journalists I still didn’t believe that my phone messages had been compromised… In 2016, the Mirror admitted to Elizabeth that my phone messages had been compromised and that summer, Elton and I started legal proceedings. This time, when Elizabeth called us in 2021 with information about what The Mail had done we took it seriously.”

“between 16 February and 16 June 2006, [Mr Mulcaire]intercepted voicemail messages left on the mobile telephone of Simon Hughes MP and provided unlawfully obtained information to [NGN].”

“there was no basis then at all for me to think otherwise”

“… I was clear also that it was not just the News of the World, it was a variety of different activities – hacking by The Sun, blagging, getting hold of information that they shouldn’t have done was being done by The Mail, The Mail on Sunday, by The Sun, there was a whole list, the Information Commissioner said so. AP: “Do not say that The Mail has been phone hacking please because our editor has categorically said it has [not] nor has the Mail group.”

“Amanda, you are right.”

“The first I discovered about Associated having been carrying out Unlawful Acts against me or commissioning private investigators on their behalf was in the last few years. This was after I started to pursue my claims against NGN and MGN in late 2019. I learnt from my solicitors that some private investigators had come forward to admit – for the first time – to unlawful information gathering that had been commissioned by Associated. I believe that the combined effect of the claim brought by my wife against The Mail over her letter to her father and by myself against NGN and MGN, prompted private investigators, such as Daniel ‘Detective Danno’ Hanks and Gavin Burrows, to come forward and to admit to this unlawful activity. Daniel Hanks, in particular, was significant as he admitted in 2021 that he had been instructed by [another newspaper] to target Meghan and her family and unlawfully obtain their social security numbers around the time we first started dating in 2016. Whilst this related to [this other newspaper], it led Hanks to make further confessions of unlawful activity in relation to Associated and to state that this was the other main UK tabloid group he worked for. I was told that Hanks had been regularly instructed by two journalists at The Mail on Sunday, [J13] and [J9] to specifically target me by blagging my private information from various companies which was then incorporated into articles for their newspaper. Another private investigator, Gavin Burrows, admitted to targeting me and those close to me… on behalf of Associated. I was told that Mr Burrows had been regularly commissioned by [J53] at The Mail on Sunday to unlawfully obtain my private information by methods such as landline tapping, voicemail hacking, blagging, obtaining credit card bills and phone records, and placing a hardwire tap on, for example [a friend’s] phone… Prior to the past few years, no one had ever mentioned any evidence, or even suggested the possibility of guilt, in relation to unlawful information gathered by Associated. Before this point, whenever I considered Associated, I never thought about this…”

“In 2019, I learnt that private voicemails I had left for my children’s then nanny… in April 2006 were the subject of emails by a freelance journalist [ZZ] to a journalist at The Mail on Sunday called [J16]. When I saw the emails for the first time, I was horrified. It was obvious that they contained transcripts of my voicemails… I instructed lawyers. I wanted to find out what else and what exactly had happened. In 2020, further information came to light. Somehow a device had been put on my landline to record calls. An individual had come forward to admit doing this for Associated in relation to me and my family… I have also learnt recently that a number of Associated’s journalists engaged in unlawful acts (or commissioned private investigators to carry out unlawful acts) against me, and that the information obtained in this way was then used in articles which were published in the Mail titles…”

“by expecting the Claimants to disregard these vehement denials, including those made under oath by senior executives at the Leveson Inquiry, and bring claims against [Associated] in the face of unyielding denials of wrongdoing, the Defendant’s position on limitation is logically, factually, and legally incoherent”

“As is well documented, our client’s publicly stated position at the Leveson Inquiry was that to the best of its knowledge no journalist employed by it has ever hacked into voicemail messages or intercepted phone calls. Our client condemned the practice of phone hacking and other nefarious, illegal practices. Let us be clear in case of any doubt, this remains our client’s position. To suggest that our client, its senior executives and journalists have repeatedly lied for years (even going so far as to lie under oath at the Inquiry) is utterly baseless and wholly false. As you are well aware, such allegations should not be raised unless there is a credible basis for them.”

“(48) Disclosure restrictions would not prevent a person not involved in the inquiry from disclosing or publishing information that had come into his possession through means unconnected with the inquiry, even if some of that information might be included in documents or hearings that were covered by a restriction order or notice. (49) For example, suppose that an inquiry were set up into the death of a hospital patient, and that a restriction notice were issued to exclude the general public from the proceedings and to prevent the publication of transcripts of evidence, because it was considered that an inquiry held partly in private would be more effective. The inquiry might consider information already in the public domain, such as papers from the inquest, or statements of hospital policy. The fact that a restriction notice was in place for the inquiry would not prevent a member of staff at the hospital from providing a patient with a copy of the hospital policy. (50) To take another example, suppose that a Government department provided information to an inquiry held in private and that, after the end of the inquiry, a request were made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for some of that information. The Department could not refuse to provide the information purely because it happened to have been covered by the restriction notice, because the Department would have held that information even if the inquiry had never happened. The purpose of a restriction notice is just to restrict disclosure of information in the context of the inquiry or to restrict disclosure by those who have received the information only by virtue of it being given to the inquiry.”

“(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purposes of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where (a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public; (b) the court gives permission; or (c) the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree…”

“(i) The collateral purpose rule now contained in CPR 31.22 exists for sound and long-established policy reasons. The court will only grant permission under rule 31.22(1)(b) if there are special circumstances which constitute a cogent reason for permitting collateral use. (ii) … (iii) There is a strong public interest in facilitating the just resolution of civil litigation. Whether that public interest warrants releasing a party from the collateral purpose rule depends upon the particular circumstances of the case. Those circumstances require careful examination. There are decisions going both ways in the authorities cited above. (iv) There is a strong public interest in preserving the integrity of criminal investigations and protecting those who provide information to prosecuting authorities from any wider dissemination of that information, other than in the resultant prosecution. (v) It is for the first instance judge to weigh up the conflicting public interests. The Court of Appeal will only intervene if the judge erred in law (as in Gohil -v- Gohil [2013] Fam 276) or failed to take proper account of the conflicting interests in play (as in IG Index -v- Cloete).”

“The Court is well aware of the lesson which King Canute gave his courtiers. Unlike Canute, the courts can take steps to enforce its injunction pending trial. As to the Mail Online’s portrayal of the law as an ass, if that is the price of applying the law, it is one which must be paid. Nor is the law one-sided; on setting aside John Wilkes’ outlawry for publishing The North Briton, Lord Mansfield said that the law must be applied even if the heavens fell: R -v- Wilkes (1768) 4 Burr 2527, 98 ER 327 (347).”