A researcher investigating alleged lawbreaking within the media industry made payments to private investigators and former journalists for their testimony regarding unlawful activities at the publisher of the Daily Mail, the High Court has been told.
Former Phone Hacker Turned Investigator
Graham Johnson, a former phone hacker who later turned his attention to researching unlawful press activity, confirmed he had made payments to six individuals who are all involved in the case brought by Prince Harry and others against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL). However, Johnson strongly denied ever paying for witness testimony, insisting the payments were made to contacts, authors, and contributors as part of his journalistic efforts to highlight unlawful media behaviour.
Funding Sources and Payment Details
Johnson revealed that most of the funding for these payments came from either the late multimillionaire and privacy campaigner Max Mosley, or a company linked to Mosley's estate. Additional funds were provided via a loan from Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP and prominent member of the Hacked Off campaign group.
The payments included a substantial sum of £75,000 to private detective Gavin Burrows, who has made serious claims regarding phone hacking, landline tapping, and bugging. Notably, Burrows now alleges that the signature on his witness statement about unlawful activities he carried out for ANL is a forgery.
Detailed Breakdown of Payments
Appearing in court as a researcher assisting the claimants' case, Johnson confirmed he had paid more than £100,000 to figures whose claims are central to the allegations facing ANL. The payments included:
- £25,000 to Gavin Burrows for "extensive notes and commentary" plus £5,000 monthly for ten months as part of a memoir deal
- £22,000 to Glenn Mulcaire, a convicted phone hacker, between 2015 and 2016
- £12,000 to Greg Miskiw, another convicted phone hacker, during the same period
- £5,000 of a £15,000 contract to Steve Whittamore, convicted of breaching information laws in 2005
- £6,000 to US-based private investigator Daniel Portley-Hanks for book work, plus additional funds for his archive
- £5,000 to private investigator turned journalist Christine Hart
Legal Arguments and Denials
Antony White, the lead barrister for ANL, suggested to Johnson that there was a "pattern of payments, or promises of payments, to people to provide evidence that can be used against Associated or newspapers more generally." White put it to Johnson that this was part of his "modus operandi" in investigating evidence of unlawful information gathering against the publisher.
Johnson repeatedly denied these allegations, stating the money was paid to his sources for "journalistic reasons" and that he had never paid for witness evidence used in legal proceedings. "I had taken legal advice multiple times, including written advice, and I stuck with that advice and complied with it," Johnson told the court.
Claimants' Allegations and Publisher's Response
The claimants' legal team accuses ANL of using Burrows to carry out a series of unlawful activities. They further allege that Hart engaged in "blagging" information for the publisher, while Portley-Hanks and Whittamore obtained private personal details, and Mulcaire and Miskiw dealt in information from phone hacking.
ANL has denied all claims of unlawful information gathering made by the group of claimants, which includes Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost. The publisher has described the accusations as "preposterous" and maintains that all articles were sourced "by entirely legitimate reporting."
Journalistic Defence and Case Continuation
Johnson defended his actions by explaining that he wrote numerous articles about the group and arranged interviews with some on BBC's Panorama and other media outlets. "I took this story, a dead story, and got it part of popular culture again, which it is," Johnson stated.
In written submissions, White argued that the accusations against ANL resulted from an attempt by the claimants' researchers and legal team to present a case "based entirely on spurious and/or discredited information, none of which is before the court in the form of proper admissible evidence."
The case continues with further proceedings expected in the High Court.
