For several years now, the scandal that has enveloped the News of the World over its alleged use of private investigators to hack into targeted individuals’ mobile telephones has been gradually moving towards boiling point.
Revelations that emerged in The Guardian earlier this week concerning the alleged hacking and deletion of phone messages left with the abducted and murdered schoolgirl Amanda ‘Milly’ Dowler – not to mention claims concerning similar alleged incidents which may involve family members of those who died as a result of the 7/7 bombings in London – have merely served to explode the issue into what’s now becoming a full-blown political scandal.
Indeed, any of you who avidly watch the BBC’s political debating strand Question Time will know that last night’s instalment from Basingstoke focused almost entirely on this one issue.
Reading through some of the national media coverage of late, one could be forgiven for thinking there was little or no involvement on the part of private investigators in this scenario since they have hardly received a mention.
Rather, the political classes have predictably directed all of their fire towards News International – a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation – and the tabloid press in general, wholly calling for greater regulation of the media.
Central to what is an ongoing scandal concerning alleged illegal practices at the News of the World, though, is Glenn Mulcaire – a private investigator arrested in August 2006 and subsequently convicted in 2007 for the part he allegedly played in hacking into the personal message boxes of mobile telephones (and, more specifically, for allegedly intercepting messages left for members of the Royal Household).
Mulcaire was duly sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for his actions. The News of the World’s Royal editor, Clive Goodman, was also imprisoned (in his case for four months).
Breaching the Data Protection Act
Mulcaire is by no means the first private investigator in recent years to have been found guilty of criminal activities when it comes to this area. Back in 2005, Steve Whittamore was one of four men given a two-year conditional discharge at Blackfriars Crown Court in London after being convicted of breaching the Data Protection Act by selling confidential information to newspapers.
The victims of Whittamore and Co were said to have included Royle Family actor Ricky Tomlinson, former London Mayor Ken Livingstone and popular EastEnders actress Jessie Wallace.
Also, a couple of years ago Ian Kerr – who ran the Consulting Association – was convicted of running an illegal ‘blacklist’ database of Trade Union activists for members of the construction industry.
The court action here, which was regarded as a test case, came after a raid by the Information Commissioner’s Office on Kerr’s own offices in Droitwich, Worcestershire back in March 2009.
Investigators unearthed details held by Black on over 3,000 workers: details that were being used by 40 construction companies to vet employment on their building sites.
Kerr was subsequently fined GB pound 5,000 plus GB pound 1,187 costs.
Some of you may recall that 2006 saw the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) publish ‘What Price Privacy?’, a damning report on the illegal trade in personal information highlighting – and I quote – ‘…evidence of systematic breaches in personal privacy that amount to an unlawful trade in confidential personal information.’
The ICO also rounded on weak sentences for transgressions of the law, with no penalty of imprisonment and a maximum fine of GB pound 5,000.
Set that against Glenn Mulcaire’s contract with the News of the World, which was said to be worth over GB pound 100,000 for a year.
Lack of interest among the political classes
The current debate lacks any interest among the aforementioned political classes when it comes to regulating private investigators.
This is a provision enacted in the 2001 Private Security Industry Act, of course, and one which has never been implemented. Indeed, it was quietly dropped altogether by the current coalition Government after much procrastination from the previous Labour administration.
Alongside door supervisors, I would argue that private investigators are the band of practitioners most in need of regulation in the industry.
It also seems perverse to me that the act of sitting in a Control Room and watching CCTV monitors is a licensable one if you’re a security officer, but then if you begin to gather information or conduct surveillance with a camera as a private investigator no form of licensing is demanded.
Of course, the vast majority of private investigators go about their business lawfully and undoubtedly provide invaluable services to their clients in UK plc, but there’s a very small minority who undermine this assertion and bring the profession into disrepute, in turn causing much distress.
Fines of up to GB pound 5,000 and even small terms in prison are unlikely to deter them.
Indeed, if he so desires Glenn Mulcaire is still free to go about his business as a private investigator even after serving a six-month jail sentence (as, in point of fact, is any other convicted criminal).
‘Colourful’ characters in operation
In days gone by there have been some ‘colourful’ characters who have worked as private investigators. Consider, if you will, one of the most notorious examples of a private investigator with an unsuitable background: Victor Norris (alias Adrian Hampson).
Norris harboured sexual and offensive weapons convictions, was the exposed leader of a satanic cult and also a founder member of the Nazi Phoenix Society. Pick up Gary Murray’s excellent book ‘Enemies of the State’ if you wish to unearth the full extent of Norris’ activities.
Surely someone of such character should not have any place in the private security industry, the like of which they can lawfully command at present?
The focus on greater regulation of the media in this area may well have some merit. However, if private investigators are excluded that would be to miss one of the most important elements in addressing this problem (if not the most important).
Journalists will always want a good story. Given that’s the case, some private investigators will be tempted, for a handsome fee, to use their skills and break the law to provide information.
They do so knowing full well their chances of getting caught are at a minimum and, if they do happen to be apprehended, the penalties will represent a relatively small cost of ‘doing business’.
Private investigators must be licensed
What’s needed is for private investigators to be licensed so that if they do get caught it’s not only a fine they face, but also the loss of their livelihood.
This will also make many think twice before engaging in such conduct because they will be putting their own licence at risk.
Linked to this should also be the offence of using an unlicensed private investigator. This would offer a means of preventing journalists from hiring the unlicensed.
Perhaps then the newspapers and private investigators would think twice before pursuing such tactics?
It’s also important to create a change of culture among private investigators by introducing a Code of Conduct and minimum standards of training. There should also be scope to make complaints about those same investigators in relation to their conduct.
The legislation to achieve all this is already there: it just requires the political will of the Government to implement it.
Clearly, there are wider issues at play which deserve the attention of a Public Inquiry and also further reforms, but addressing one aspect of the problems highlighted in the current scandal could, I firmly believe, be dealt with relatively easily.
Dr Mark Button is a reader in criminology at the University of Portsmouth
