Eversheds wins role on Leveson's phone-hacking inquiry
Share
Eversheds is advising the Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPC), the body responsible for supervising the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), as part of the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics.
Led by head of inquiries and investigations Peter Watkin Jones, the firm has been officially acting for the MOPC since Wednesday, when Lord Justice Leveson granted the core witness application made by the MOPC for module two of the year-long inquiry.
Due to commence in February, the module will examine the relationship between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest.
The MOPC, which last week (15 January) replaced the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) as the MPS’s governing body, is expected to give evidence on how it regulated the MPS on issues related to its relationship with the press.
The MPS, which was granted core participant status at the start of the inquiry (15 September 2011), has come under scrutiny over what has been perceived as senior police officers’ close relationships with sections of the media.
Former parliamentary commissioner Elizabeth Filkin called for tighter controls over how the MPS service deals with journalists to prevent erosion of trust in police not just among the public, but among police ranks.
The MPS has instructed One Crown Office Row’s Neil Garnham QC to act on its behalf.
Eversheds declined to comment on the appointment.
Readers' comments (1)
Elaine Decoulos | 28-Jan-2012 1:18 pm
The MPOC seems like a helpful addition as a Core Participant, but I think you should also do a story on why the victims' have had a change in solicitor and why it did not include a much needed change in barrister.
The whole situation around victim Core Participants is strange indeed. Half of them have not participated in the Inquiry in any way. I sought to become a victim Core Participant after being defamed and libeled across the British press, but Lord Justice Leveson denied me. I sought Judicial Review and that was denied me, though Lord Justice Moses agreed that I had a lot to contribute about the press with Mr. Justice Singh concurring. I am taking this to the Court of Appeal.
David Sherborne, counsel to the victims, said at last Wednesday's Directions hearing for Module 2 that he wanted to continue with the same group of victim Core Participants. No questions from Lord Justice Leveson. Something strange is going on. Whomever David Sherborne wants as a Core Participant, irrespective of their relevance and contribution, he gets.
Could my being refusal Core Participant status have anything to do with the fact that David Sherborne has been my direct opponent for many years in libel litigation involving The Daily Mail? Seems ever so likely by the day. I was the Claimant and he was representing one of my defendants, Bruno Schroder of Schroders, who gave a quote to The Daily Mail that I say was very libellous of me. Easy to prove in fact with a court order.
The outcome of the claim was that David Sherborne, beacon of press wrongdoing at Leveson, got my claim against his client, Bruno Schroder, stayed for costs of £25,000, costs originating from another claim. He then got it struck out in my absence while I was in Massachusetts.
My claim against The Daily Mail is also currently stayed for costs, part of which were to be assessed. Soon after these orders were made, I won't say by whom, I suffered a severe concussion after reading The White Book in Kensington Library and was unable to appeal the orders at the time. Leveson does not want to know.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment