The Dowler family’s omni-present solicitor Mark Lewis suggests that four cases concerning phone-hacking have been filed against the Mirror. Uh oh, Piersy…

The Wall Street Journal say that Morgan was quizzed thoroughly about his past before he got the CNN gig, though there is speculation that this had more to do with those fake-Iraqi torture photos. Sources at the network have said there is an “ongoing conversation” about the allegations that rather than disappear, keep coming. That’s a shift from full confidence…

It may be “all a bit awkward”, because they know each other socially, but that hasn’t stopped another of Sven Goran Eriksson’s lovers, Nancy Dell’Olio, from going after Morgan. LibDem MP Paul Marsden is thought to be another case. As Guido highlighted last week, Sir Paul McCartney might want to get the ball rolling too. Rumour has it Pier’s has lawyered up for what looks set to be a rough few months…

*Graphic is artist’s interpretation of the last time Morgan was on the stand.

One snippet of yesterday’s phone-hacking debate in Parliament struck Guido as slightly odd. QC, and West Devon MP, Geoffrey Cox revealed some damning loose ends about Blair’s Attorney General and Lord Macdonald, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, that the Home Affairs Select Committee report did not clear up. In May 2006 both Goldsmith and Macdonald were given a briefing from the police that stated:

“a vast number of unique voicemail numbers belonging to high-profile individuals (politicians, celebrities) have been identified as being accessed without authority. These may be the subject of wider investigation.”

Cox went on to point out that the CPS decided to instead focus their investigation on Goodman and Mulcaire, and the hacking of two officials at the palace. Despite this, Goldsmith knew about the extent of the phone-hacking, yet seemingly did nothing. Cox was pushing Labour to reveal whether Goldsmith raised the issue at Cabinet, as he had a duty to do with matters of public interest. As he repeatedly hammered home – why was nothing done?

Another Tory MP Mark Reckless, who is on the Home Affairs Select Committee, is going after Lord Macdonald, who is now at Matrix Chambers with Blair’s wife. Reckless has written to Macdonald demanding to know why nothing was done. Reckless also wants to know how much Macdonald has had in writing fees since he stood down at the CPS from, you guessed it, News International. Another layer emerges…

Roy Greenslade reveals in his Standard column today that the Sunday Times’ lawyers have declared that there are no legal grounds for appealing the court order demanding that they hand over of their Pryce/Huhne tape and documentation to Essex Police. The hour is getting late Chris. Time to reach for your simple sword of truth and that trusty shield of British fair play.

Guido has been awaiting the trial of Ian Puddick with avid interest. Puddick set up a series of websites to vent his anger over his wife’s 10-year affair with her boss, Timothy Haynes. On the first day of the case there has been no suggestion that anything posted online by Ian Puddick is untrue, simply that the widespread and repeated dissemination amounts to harassment. He was raided by the City of London Police on dubious grounds. This is as Mr Puddick himself says “a very interesting case”.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries is hounded online to a degree that is amazing for a backbench MP, even for one as admittedly colourful as Nadine, her persecution is extraordinary. Every thing she says, writes or tweets is deconstructed. Any slip of the tongue is a lie, any poorly phrased blog post is used in evidence against her. She is an outspoken woman with strong views, a socially conservative opponent of abortion. In some circles this is a thought-crime.

Her forays into blogging and tweeting have brought her nothing but grief, Guido advised her some years ago to quit the online limelight. There is little she can do about what people write about her online if it is not defamatory or a provable lie. Opinion is hard to action.

Lawyers believe the Puddick case could help define the limits of free expression online, the prosecution claims the plumber’s actions were harassment such that they forced the adulterous director to leave his position due to stress. In Guido’s opinion unless the harassment takes the form of direct communication – email, telephone, faxes, letters, tweets – it should not be actionable. If this case sets a precedent that online publication can be harassment won’t it have a chilling effect on free expression? For years this blog wrote almost daily negative stories about Gordon Brown, we know that this stressed him greatly. Should Brown be allowed to sue Guido for harassment? Should Nadine be allowed to sue her enemies for harassing her online?

Essex Police have handed over preliminary papers concerning Chris Huhne to the CPS. There was a bit of confusion, and they deny the initial reports that it was the full file, but say they are “considering it”.  Presumably they are waiting for the document Vicky Pryce signed saying she would back up the accusations in court. Intriguingly BBC sources suggest there is “a credible chance” he will be prosecuted. Broom broom!

PA is suggesting that Essex Police had a face to face meeting on Friday with the CPS to discuss Chris Huhne’s speeding points. The inquiry is on going, but the police must be confident enough that they have a case if they are actively seeking face time the prosecutors…

Huhne was out of the country last week, he might wish he’d stayed there…

As a matter of public interest Guido is passing on this email circulating inside the Mail:

Please Note the contents of this new Legal Warning – If you are an internal recipient you may click on the link at the bottom of the memo to see the document in the warnings database.

Keith Schilling
We have been contacted by Keith Schilling in connection with an article in The Mail on Sunday dated 29 May 2011, page 13, headed “How The Silencer made me sign a gagging agreement … on our second date” and on Mail Online headed “How lawyer who’s made millions keeping secrets of stars made me sign a gagging agreement … on our second date“.

Mr Schilling says publication of the article is a breach of contract and breach of confidence. He also says it breaches his privacy.
Please contact the legal department with any queries.

They say when you represent yourself you have a fool for a client. Keith Schilling wants to sue an ex-girlfriend and the Mail for violating his privacy by saying he is effectively a sad weirdo. Truth is an absolute defence to libel and this is a matter of public interest given his firm’s ongoing campaign of legal terrorism.

The public interest always trumps privacy…

Guido understands that both the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday have evidence that is not in the form of a “sworn affidavit” as was claimed yesterday by rivals the Telegraph. It is nevertheless evidence from Vicky Pryce that gave the respective papers’ lawyers confidence to allow them to assert that Chris Huhne perverted the course of justice. A serious charge…

Today in the Daily Telegraph the same journalist, Mark Hughes, claims a police source says Vicky Pryce did not confirm claims she has previously made about taking her husband’s penalty points. It was Mark Hughes however who made the claim about a “sworn affidavit” and wrote yesterday in the Telegraph that it was “the likelihood that Miss Pryce told detectives that she took penalty points on behalf of her former husband when she was interviewed on Tuesday.”  An about turn in 24 hours…

Given the existence of her evidence, if it is true that Vicky Pryce has declined to assist the police, the police will almost certainly obtain a Court Order for the evidence from the newspapers. Not long now...

Songstress – turned – political – campaigner Annie Lennox tells the Staggers this week that she doesn’t want to be put in a box: “I have different hats; I’m a mother, I’m a woman, I’m a human being, I’m an artist and hopefully I’m an advocate. All of those plates are things I spin all the time.” Guido thought we weren’t allowed to mention Annie Lennox plating…

The Schillings backlash has commenced in full, the tabloids are splashing on front page stories about Schillings’ losing clients with gusto. Schillings lost a case about Gordon Ramsey’s father-in-law yesterday to The Sun, over a case originally taken out by Schillings against Guido’s virtual mother, Popbitch, rubbing more salt into Schillings’ wounds.

The make-up of the recent Lord Neuberger Committee on super-injunctions – set up to investigate the supposed “need for a privacy law” – included lawyers involved in making their millions from the injunction industry; Rod Christie-Miller, CEO of Schillings, and Alasdair Pepper, a Carter-Ruck partner, argued their case successfully.

Privacy law is based on the European Convention on Human Rights which was formulated in the 1950s,  Article 8 enshrined an individual’s right to a private and family life at a time when totalitarianism stalked Europe. Millions were oppressed, the rights of shagging celebrities were not foremost in the drafter’s minds. It was envisaged to protect individuals from the state.

Lord Wakeham, a former chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, argues this morning that the the Human Rights Act could be amended, rather than just repealed:-

“..possibly by limiting the role of the Courts to dealing with issues that impact only on public authorities and the State (as the drafters of the Convention envisaged). That would leave the media outside the direct supervision of the Courts on privacy issues and enable the PCC – which can react much more swiftly to changes in newspaper technology than the law will ever be able to do so – to reassert its primacy in this area, as Parliament always intended.”

In Ireland the ECHR was incorporated into the constitution only in 2006, Irish judges so far have taken the Wakeham view, correctly in Guido’s opinion, that Article 8 is to protect individuals from unlawful privacy violations by the state and agencies of the state. It protects individuals only from journalists who use illegal means; hacking, stealing photos, sneaking onto private property and similar. It has not so far been used to hide the embarrassment of adulterous politicians and footballers. That is how Article 8 should be properly interpreted and parliament should make the law explicitly clear.

A few years ago an Irish High Court judge gave Carter-Ruck’s representatives short shrift and a bollocking over an application they made for a gagging-injunction against a certain charming, cheeky Irish blogger on behalf of a rich British politician and his socialite freedom of speech campaigner sister. For legal reasons Guido can’t say any more…