by Brian Cathcart
The Mirror and the Telegraph are reporting that lawyers acting for one of the killers of James Bulger are planning to sue News International because their client’s phone was hacked.
Both papers dwell at length on the distress of the murder victim’s family at this reported development – and you can see why they feel that way – but both papers also fail to point out the most alarming implication of the story.
Robert Thompson was living under a secret and protected identity when Glenn Mulcaire acquired his mobile number, apparently in 2002. He had been released from detention only months earlier and, after many threats to his life, was one of the handful of people in the whole country most at risk from violent attack.
How did the News of the World penetrate the official security around him? Very few people can have known both his phone number and his real identity, and all of them must have been in positions of trust. The Mirror and the Telegraph don’t seem to be interested in whether one of these people betrayed that trust, or indeed in whether money changed hands.
And there are other questions, which may be more alarming still. If Mulcaire could get through that protective barrier, who else could, was anybody else hacked, and were people placed in danger?
The protection given to Thompson, after all, was similar to the protection sometimes given by the state to threatened witnesses to serious crime, and to people involved in crime who have turned Queen’s evidence. We would surely like to think that the state can guarantee the anonymity and thus the safety of such people, but can it?
There may be many who don’t like to think that Robert Thompson might receive thousands in compensation from News International, but we should ask ourselves who is responsible.
I suspect that the Mirror and the Telegraph would like us to believe that it is a sign of excessive zeal in the investigation of hacking – you can almost hear the words: “It has all gone too far.” But this misses the point, again.
Nobody in 2002 can have been in the slightest doubt that any attempt to breach the secrecy around Thompson was wrong, and equivalent to raising two fingers to the criminal justice system. But, as the Sunday Times was the first to report last year the News of the World went ahead anyway. (This was the same year that it hacked Milly Dowler’s phone.)
If James Bulger’s relatives are angry about the consequence, they should ask which journalist at the News of the World commissioned Mulcaire to do the hacking, because that is the person who is really responsible for their current distress.
Brian Cathcart tweets at @BrianCathcart
Totally agree. Robert Thompson is not responsible for Denise Fergus’ distress this time. And like it or not, as a victim of Mulcaire (and apparently quite a big on since the hacking of his phone went on for some time – an act which could have put his life at risk); he is entitled to seek compensation.
Denise Fergus should be taking her anger out on News International this time.
Perhaps if people respected the law and allowed Robert Thompson to attempt a life without being followed, hacked and stalked; then he wouldn’t be asking for compensation now.
I’d like to know how much Mrs Fergus has received over the years for interviews with tabloids, TV appearances, etc. Probably a good deal more than Thompson is likely to get.
What Mrs Fergus may – or may not – have got paid, or received as expenses is irrelevant.
What Robert Thompson may – or may not – get as compensation is irrelevant.
Even juxtaposing the two issues is just playing the Sensationalist Press’s game of turning all news stories into some sick soap opera in which we are supposed to take sides.
I always thought that the UK had a legal system in which people convicted of crimes served their sentences and were then free, and if need be protected … has something changed ?
As this article admirably points out, the real issue is newspapers (possibly with the help of corrupt public servants), electing themselves as law-makers, judges and juries.
It may well be that Mrs Fergus will feel only hatred towards the two killers for the remainder of her days, one could hardly blame her if this is true. However neither victims nor newspapers decide the law nor the punishments for crimes – for which thank God say I !
I hope this is brought up in the next bit of the Leveson inquiry (which focuses on the police and the media) because if a police officer or public official sold that information to Mulcaire/NOTW then that person should feel the full force of the law. Even if no money changed hands, if information was handed over, it was in full knowledge they were putting an individual at serious risk. An absolute disgrace.
So we could add knowingly and intentionally putting an individual’s life at risk to the litany of charges against NOTW? What kind if idiot gave away Thompson’s details? Surely Mulcaire could only have got these from either a police officer or a civil servant?
And if Thompson was hacked, he’ll get compensation. Perhaps Denise Fergus should think about her own relationship with the tabloid press. Perhaps she will start to realise that they never had her interests at heart and always looked on her son’s death as a means of selling copy.
That is true Mark.
I agree that Robert Thompson has the right in law to sue News International for the breach of his article 8 rights.
As importantly, perhaps, Thompson also has the right in law to sue those – police officers or other employees of the Crown – who disclosed his private information to the News of the World.
Last but not least, any compensation, or a large part of it, that Thompson receives from a successful action, should go to the family of James Bulger, and/or to charities who look after the victims of crime, and/or to charities who have after-school programs and the like to try to prevent in the first place other kids like Thompson ending up behaving in the appalling way that he did.
It is completely up to Thompson what he chooses to do with any compensation he receives. The state cannot make demands on what he should do with it – and neither should it (although I personally think at least some sum should be given to organisations which help children and young people who are in conflict with the law and help their rehabiltiation). This would be compensation for a crime against him by a large corporation for a long period of time.
Denise Fergus already gets plenty of money from the media I am sure – I see absolutely no reason why she should profit from a crime against Thompson.
I could care less about Robert Thompson’s “rights”. He gave all of that up when he callously murdered a defenceless toddler, despite walking past two police stations where he could easily have handed the child over. He fully intended to murder that child, as did Jon Venables. As far as I am concerned the hacking is merely karma and I personally hope that Glenn Mulcaire is not the only journalist with Robert Thompson’s personal details. I hope that he is exposed and shamed-as he should be. All the compensation in the world won’t change a thing. His cocoon of protection isn’t as secure as he thought it was. I hope that he lies awake at night thinking of it all and wishing that he could turn back the hands of time.
Thankfully, the law says different Jane. Thompson’s protection under the law is no different from yours or mine and your personal view of people committing criminal acts (not only hacking but breaking injunctions, corruption in public office) against him does not make them less criminal.
It is repugnant that people have this idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ victims. It is even worse that someone could justify serious criminal behaviour merely because a victim is unpopular. Where would that attitude ultimately lead? All your post shows is that you think it perfectly OK to break the law if you don’t like someone.
Like it or not Robert Thompson served his time according to the sentence handed down. You may not think it enough but, frankly, that is tough. Given he is now a citizen and not a prisoner, he is afforded every right you and I expect – including the right to privacy and family life. If these rights are breached by criminal acts, he has the right to go to the courts to seek recompense (along with expecting the criminal justice system to call the lawbreakers to account).