And so the Press Complaints Commission sits there, not as King Canute failing to turn back the tide of voicemail hacking, but as the embodiment of all three monkeys, seeing nothing, saying nothing, and doing nothing.
The News of the World now assures us it has "zero tolerance" of phone hacking. Bill Akass, the managing editor, says that if the latest case is proven, the perpetrator will be dismissed for "gross misconduct without compensation". That is an improvement on the position adopted after the convictions of Clive Goodman (the former royal correspondent) and Glenn Mulcaire (a private investigator). Both were paid off, and to this day both remain silent.
After the phone hacking story broke, the PCC, the regulator of the press financed by the press, did nothing.
It continues to do nothing while making noises that "phone message hacking is deplorable". The excuses for doing nothing are varied but the outcome is the same.
First there was a denial that there was a problem, then a denial that this had been said, and instead a statement that there was no jurisdiction to compel journalists to give evidence. Now the New York Times has alleged more recent hacking. We didn't know, but the PCC said it knew in June. So what is it doing? Not coming down like a "ton of bricks", as it assured us. The answer is that the PCC is doing nothing. The PCC's reason this time? "This is currently the subject of legal action which has prevented the PCC from becoming formally involved at this stage." Such a position does not stand up to legal scrutiny or common sense. There is nothing to prevent an investigation just because a civil action has started. Even with criminal proceedings, the rules of sub judice do not create a blanket ban on such investigation. The News of the World itself says that it is operating its own investigation "in tandem". It is investigating, and the PCC should.
If the PCC wanted to investigate, it could. The New York Times's story reveals the identity of various former News of the World employees who have said that they have information of the culture of the newspaper under its former editor. The PCC should interview them, and hold a full investigation into this scandal.
The failure by the PCC to investigate fully, and discipline the perpetrators if offences are proven, undermines the very reason for its existence. The PCC is supposedly the Press Complaints Commission. There is a complaint that someone employed by a newspaper has broken the law. That is a complaint that should be investigated properly.
Although the PCC has promised to do something once the litigation is over, it might never know if it is over. If the PCC does know, and if the case is proven, so that the journalist is dismissed, will it fall back on the excuse, "he no longer works for the paper and therefore we are able to do … nothing"?
Mark Lewis is a solicitor and consultant at Taylor Hampton Solicitors LLP. He is suing the PCC, Lady Buscombe and the Metropolitan police
