I do not accept the findings made against me in the

Committee of Privileges Report.

I stand by the evidence I gave on both of the issues
they have highlighted.
In particular, I accepted clearly and unequivocally at
the outset of my evidence to the CMS Committee
(Q1339) that the problem of phone-hacking by News of
the World reporters went beyond the Clive
Goodman/Glenn Mulcaire situation. That is a matter of
record which is beyond challenge.
It is regrettable that the CMS Committee report which is
the subject of the Privileges Committee findings chose
to ignore completely the above evidence I gave.
The Committee of Privileges findings of contempt
against Tom Crone and his public response (in
bold) to each finding are set out below.
1. Significance of Confidentiality in Settlement
of the Taylor Case
Report: paragraph 150. We have concluded that it is
significantly more likely than not to be true that Tom
Crone misled the CMS Committee in 2009 by giving a
counter-impression of the significance of confidentiality
in the Gordon Taylor settlement. He was involved in the
settlement negotiations and knew that NGNs desire for
confidentiality had increased the settlement amount.
We make a finding of contempt in relation to this issue.
I do not accept this finding.
I have never heard of giving a counterimpression being a recognisable concept in law
or justice, and whatever it means, cannot accept,
that it is an appropriate basis for a formal finding
of contempt.

I am criticised in the Report for failing to take the

opportunity to provide a full and honest answer
.on the question of confidentiality. In fact, I
answered every question put to me on this
subject and, I answered them fully and honestly.
Answers are dictated by questions and
witnesses are there to answer the specific
questions asked. It is not for me as a witness to
suggest appropriate questions to the Committee
or to address the Committee other than by reply
to questioning. The witness answers the specific
questions put by the inquisitor and when the
inquisitor moves to a different subject the
witness follows.
In this instance the Chairman of the Committee
asked me four specific questions on this matter
all of which I answered fully and honestly. He
then moved to a different subject and, inevitably
I moved to that subject with him.
I do not accept that I can be criticised for failing
to answer questions I was not asked.
2.

Involvement of Others in Phone-hacking

Report: paragraph 204. We have concluded that the

allegations are significantly more likely than not to be
true, and that Tom Crone misled the CMS Committee by
answering questions falsely about [his] knowledge of
evidence that other News of the World employees had
been involved in phone-hacking and other
wrongdoing. We make a finding of contempt on this
issue
I do not accept this finding.

The basis for this allegation is that before the

CMS Committee in 2009 I gave repeated
assurances that there was no evidence that any further
News of the World employees beyond Clive Goodman,
had been involved in phone-hacking (CMS Report
2012, Par. 130)
And that I am one of a number of senior executives
of News International who, in 2009, lined up to tell
the Committee that, as far as they were concerned,
Clive Goodman had been a single rogue reporter(CMS
Report Par. 120).
Not only is this allegation without any evidential
foundation, but the relevant transcript
demonstrates that I accepted at the very outset
before the CMS Committee in 2009 that from
April 2008 there was evidence, in the form of the
for Neville email, and another document that
the problem of accessing by our reporters, or
complicity in accessing, went beyond the
Goodman/Mulcaire situation.
I made that clear in answer to Q1339 (on the first
page of the official transcript and quoted in full
below) and everything I said thereafter is in the
context of that clear and unequivocal admission.
I went on to tell the CMS Committee (Q1346) that
the intercepted voicemails in the for Neville
email must have been used to source a
proposed story about Gordon Taylor which had
clearly been worked on by reporters other than
Clive Goodman.
In its 2010 Report criticising me for giving
repeated assurances that there was no evidence
that any further News of the World employees
beyond Clive Goodman had been involved in
phone-hacking the CMS Committee made no

reference whatsoever to the clear acceptances of

wider involvement in phone-hacking I gave in
answer to Q1339 and Q1406.
They did, however, remove the last sentence of
my Q1339 answer and publish the rest of it in
paragraphs 22 and 23 of their 2012 Report to
support their allegation that I, among others,
asserted the lone rogue reporter defence. The
removal of the last sentence had the effect of
reversing the real meaning of what I said in
evidence and giving the false impression that I
had indeed asserted the lone rogue reporter
line.
It is almost impossible to see how this could be
an innocent misrepresentation. The Privileges
Committee Report seems to ignore this point as
well as a very large number of other failings by
the CMS Committee.
My Q1339 answer with the relevant sentence
highlighted:
In the aftermath of Clive Goodman and Mulcaires
arrest and subsequent conviction various internal
investigations were conducted by us. This was against
the background of a nine month massively intense
police investigation prior to arrest and then a
continuing investigation in the five months up until
conviction. The police raided Mulcaires premises; they
raided Goodmans premises; and they raided the News
of the World offices. They seized every available
document; they searched all the computers, the files,
the emails et cetera. Subsequent to the arrests they
came to us, the News Group Newspapers Ltd, and
made various requests to us to produce documents
which they felt may be relevant. At no stage during

their investigation or our investigation did any evidence

arise that the problem of accessing by our reporters, or
complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond
the Goodman/Mulcaire situation. The first piece of
evidence we saw of that, in terms of the
management investigating, was in April 2008
when Mr Taylors lawyers produced two
documents: the first was a February 2005 holding
contract and the second was the email that was
discussed here last week (i.e. the For Neville
email).