UK—ICO defends 2003 investigation
Published
Contributors:
Hannah Jackson
Senior Associate
Hogan Lovells
UK newspaper The Independent has investigated the files seized during Operation Motorman, the 2003 ICO inquiry that revealed private investigators’ widespread use of illegal practices to gather personal information at the request of paying journalists.
The ICO’s lead investigator on the inquiry has reportedly told The Independent that his team was forbidden from interviewing journalists that were the subject of the investigation. He described the report produced following Operation Motorman as “very inaccurate,” suggesting that, had his team been permitted to question journalists, they may have uncovered the current phone hacking years earlier.
The ICO has explained that the reason it did not pursue legal action against individual journalists was that doing so would not be in the public interest because of the difficulty in proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the journalists who received information had directly asked for it to be obtained illegally. The ICO therefore maintains that the best course of action at the time was instead to raise awareness about the widespread practice by placing its “What Price Privacy?” report before Parliament.
The ICO’s lead investigator on the inquiry has reportedly told The Independent that his team was forbidden from interviewing journalists that were the subject of the investigation. He described the report produced following Operation Motorman as “very inaccurate,” suggesting that, had his team been permitted to question journalists, they may have uncovered the current phone hacking years earlier.
The ICO has explained that the reason it did not pursue legal action against individual journalists was that doing so would not be in the public interest because of the difficulty in proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the journalists who received information had directly asked for it to be obtained illegally. The ICO therefore maintains that the best course of action at the time was instead to raise awareness about the widespread practice by placing its “What Price Privacy?” report before Parliament.
