Public figures 'suing over phone hacking'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
High profile figures whose phones were allegedly hacked by the News of the World are considering suing the newspaper, according to lawyers.
Several barristers and solicitors have been contacted by various public figures seeking advice, media lawyer Mark Stephens said.
A legal action could result in a payout of more than half a million pounds for each individual.
Mr Stephens, of London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said he had been approached by two high profile figures seeking advice.
He also knew of three barristers and three solicitors who had been approached.
Mr Stephens said: "At the moment it's fair to say that people are looking at their options, they want to see what is going on.
"The first hurdle for any individual is to ascertain whether they were the subject of criminal behaviour or a conspiracy for criminal behaviour.
"That requires them to obtain from the police, the information commissioner or the court details of what was happening."
Scotland Yard last night ruled out a new investigation into claims thousands of public figures had their phones hacked.
Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates said police had seen no additional evidence since its last investigation, which saw News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire jailed for four months and six months respectively.
But he added police would now inform any potential victims that their phone may have been hacked where there was any suspicion.
Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said he was carrying out an "urgent" review of evidence from the original investigation.
The furore broke after the Guardian reported that News Group Newspapers, which publishes the News of the World, had paid out more than £1 million to settle cases that threatened to disclose evidence of its journalists' alleged involvement in telephone hacking.
Mr Stephens said: "Even your average policeman on the beat will have been slack jawed by the comments of John Yates yesterday because he doesn't appear to have considered the possibility of criminal conspiracy charges."
He said any civil action would have to follow criminal proceedings and was likely to take the form of a "consolidated action" in which the same judge would look at the individual cases one after another.
Mr Stephens said a successful claim was likely to result in a payout of more than half a million pounds for damages and costs.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
1. We don't know if there was a financial implication of this spying. Clearly to have been spying on other editors they must have been attempting to steal their stories to the detriment of their shareholders. Further you assume that all this alleged hacking was intended to be for the betterment of the NotW. Personally I would put money on the fact that if the alleged spies had seen any commercial advantage to be gained from their spying they wold have flogged the info to any interested party like a shot - whether or not it was printed.
2. Nobody spends money as alleged without perceiving a benefit. Their gain has to be someone else's loss.
we don't give damages just for the insult-so to speak
if the police can find no evidence of wrong doing how would any plaintiff prove any case -not least any actual loss?
people are getting too litigious by half. harrumph , demned new fangled ideas. that Mosely scoundrel got damages for the hitherto unknown tort of invasion of privacy and idiotically contemplates suing in libel
people are getting too litigious by half. harrumph , demned new fangled ideas. that Mosely scoundrel got damages for the hitherto unknown tort of invasion of privacy and idiotically contemplates suing in libel
Isn't there the slightest hint of long dead fish in the air?
If they want to gain our trust maybe they should stop behaving like children trying to get "one-up" on another party. They country needs quite a lot of attention and paying them to sit in an expensive property to squabble about nothing like children just re-affirms that they are not worthy of the positions they have mistakenly been elected to.
Everybody else who might have lost nothing now wants money for it (or do they just want the publicity). I suppose we will have to endure all the ex-Big Brother non-entities trying for anything (because anythin is better than nothing).