? JK Rowling: I was driven out of my home by press
? A journalist slipped a note inside her daughter's schoolbag.
? Taken over 50 actions against press
? The Harry Potter author chased paparazzi a week after giving birth
? Fears photographs of her children are still on the internet.
? Sienna Miller: I was verbally abused and spat at by paparazzi
? Horribly, I accused my friends and family of leaking stories
? Max Mosley: News International was out to 'destroy' me
? Mosley taking legal action in 22 countries and suing Google
? Mosley: non-harmful sexual activities are nobody's business
? Piers Morgan to give evidence to inquiry
6.51pm: We're closing today's Leveson blog now, but be live again on Monday morning to hear from Charlotte Church and others.
The Leveson inquiry doesn't sit on Fridays.
The order of play for Monday has not been confirmed but the witnesses are:
? Charlotte Church
? Anne Diamond
? Ian Hurst
? Chris Jefferies
? Jane Winter
6.44pm: Sky News home affairs correspondent Mark White has tweeted this:
@skymarkwhite After a week of evidence about the relentless pursuit of celebs, cue JK Rowling's car departing court chased by photographers! #leveson
6.38pm: We now also have video of JK Rowling giving evidence.
6.35pm: The first person to be arrested in connection with claims of computer hacking by private investigators working for News International was released on bail tonight.
Press Association has this report:
The 52-year-old man was detained earlier today under the Met Police's Operation Tuleta, which runs alongside the Operation Weeting probe into phone-hacking.
The suspect, who was arrested in Milton Keynes on suspicion of Computer Misuse Act offences, was later bailed to return to a London police station in early December, police said.
A police spokesman said: "Operation Tuleta is investigating a number of allegations regarding breach of privacy, received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) since January 2011, which fell outside the remit of Operation Weeting, including computer hacking."
Tuleta was launched over the summer after a "scoping exercise" into allegations surrounding the use of private detectives.
Officers working on the inquiry have been reporting to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who heads the inquiry into mobile phone interceptions at the now defunct News of the World.
Scotland Yard's phone-hacking squad is working its way through 300 million emails from News International.
Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe says police have already spent up to £3 million on salaries, with officers speaking to 1,800 of 6,000 potential victims.
A total of 120 officers and staff are now working on the entire investigation after 1,800 people came forward to express fears that they may have been hacked.
6.28pm: Max Mosley tells how News International tried to 'destroy' him.
The full resources were then deployed
6.21pm: Former Sun editor has come out in defence of Elle Macpherson after her former adviser told Leveson the super model accused her of being an alcoholic. Field has not had an apology.
David Yelland tweets:
Elle Macpherson may have made an error over poor Mary-Ellen Field but she shouldn't be persecuted. She did what she thought best at time.
6.04pm: Harry Potter JK Rowling's written evidence to the Leveson inquiry
6.00pm: Sienna Miller's full written evidence to the Leveson inquiry:
5.12pm: Here's a summary of the days revelations from the Leveson inquiry:
? JK Rowling has taken more than 50 actions against papers
? She tells of her "anger" and "sense of invasion" on discovering a letter from a journalist inside her five-year-old daughter's schoolbag.
? The Harry Potter author was frequently "under siege" by photographers and snapped in private. She chased paparazzi a week after giving birth and was driven from her home in 1997 by press attention.
? She is so guarded, she has only worn a swimsuit on a beach twice since 1998. Both times she was photographed
? She fears photographs of her children, taken without consent, are still on the internet. 'A lie can spread around the world before the truth had got its boots on'.
? Former formula one boss Max Mosley says he is battling to get libellous Nazi references removed from the internet in 22 countries. He is taking legal action against Google to stop the references appearing in search results.
? Mosley says Daily Mail editor is "naive about sex" and "obsessed with schoolboy smut". He says people's sex lives is no newspaper's business.
? Both Mosley and Rowling want a system forcing newspapers to give "prior notification" of publication. Leveson heard how tabloids don't do this when they have 'outrageous' stories or pictures because they know they will be injuncted.
? Sienna Miller tells has she was verbally abused and spat at by paparazzi. Horribly, she says she accused her friends and family of leaking stories but now knows she was hacked.
? At 21 years old, she found herself chased by 10 men with cameras down the street at midnight. That was 'a very intimidating situation'
? Piers Morgan has confirmed he will appear before the inquiry
4.55pm: The inquiry has just published more witness statements.
Sienna Miller written evidence
Max Mosley written evidence
Mark Thomson written evidence
JK Rowling written evidence
4.53pm: The Leveson inquiry has now ended for the day.
It will resume on Monday at 10am.
4.48pm: The running order for Tuesday is as follows:
Tuesday:
? Richard Peppiatt, former Daily Star journalist
? Nick Davies, Guardian investigative journalist who broke the phone-hacking story
? Paul McMullan, former features editor at the News of the World
4.46pm: News of the World journalist Paul McMullan and Guardian investigative journalist Nick Davies are due to give evidence on Tuesday, it has been confirmed.
Lord Justice Leveson says he has read Nick Davies's Flat Earth News after Jay says that the chapter on "dark arts" of newsgathering will be incorporated into Davies's evidence.
4.45pm: JK Rowling is now talking about a Carole Malone piece in the Sunday Mirror ? a "vehement" piece, she describes it.
A lie can spread around the world before the truth had got its boots on.
The column described how she had fallen for her husband who is a doctor but he would now be "at the beck and call of his obscenely rich wife". The language, JK Rowling said, was "very strong".
No calls were made to the Harry Potter author.
Rowling says she feels extremely strong about this because her husband is not famous or did not seek to be. His colleagues at the hospital where he worked believed "he had thrown in the towel".
I felt that article was vicious, it was clearly wholly untrue and it was sending out a horrible message to my husband's colleagues.
4.24pm: Leveson is now examining an article in the Sunday Times from 14 August this year. Rowling says she wasn't aware anything had appeared in reference to earlier discussion about an inquiry she had for an interview about her garden.
The article talks about some plants which carry a fungus. It says JK Rowling plans to introduce several to her Edinburgh home. The trees are then listed in the article.
Its just ludicrous. I find it ludicrous. How is this ... I don't recognise these plants I'm going to plant.
News International says its position is that these plants were listed in an planning application submitted by architects.
"I don't know what to say about this. This has been rather sprung on me," says Rowling.
4.21pm: Rowling is now detailing an incident with the Scottish Sunday Times, which was going to publish an article about what trees the couple were planting in their garden.
She couldn't understand why she was being referenced in the article and when we said no, we were not minded to let them on to our property, the journalist said fine, "I'll come along myself and see" ? come on to our property I presume.
4.14pm: Rowling says the Daily Express published an article saying she had based an unpleasant character on her ex-husband.
She had said she had made a "throwaway" remark at a children's book reading that Gilderoy Lockhart was based on someone she had lived with briefly. At these events people asked whether characters were based on real characterrs. She said it was true that the character was based on someone she had "shared flats" with a long time ago but it was not her husband.
This was in the context of speaking to children about the creation of a book. I was not expecting what came next, which was this article. They were depicting me as this vindictive person that would use a bestselling book to vilify someone I bore a grudge against.
She said she was forced to sit down with her eldest daughter and tell her the connection between Lockhart and her father was not true.
4.12pm: Rowling says the press are more wary of her now that they know she is willing to take them to court.
My opinion is if one shows oneself prepared to take a stand then the press has been wary of me ... curiously, I suppose, because they're aware that I can afford to pay for expensive lawyers. Which I think is a sad reflection on the current state of affairs.
4.11pm: Rowling says she finds it "hard to believe" that someone found the manuscript in a field, "but there you are".
Her view is this:
This is a classic example of ... a section of the press that sees it as an opportunity. I was being blackmailed. What they wanted was a photo of me posing gratefully after receiving the book back.
4.09pm: Leveson is now hearing how the last edition of the Harry Potter series got leaked.
The Sun in 2007 claimed it had got hold of a copy it claimed an "unemployed gentleman had found in a field".
The book was offered to Associated Newspapers, but it was completely rejected by the publisher.
The Sun did a review of the book as a way of publishing part of the contents, she claimed.
4.08pm: Rowling details the second case of blagging. She had just started dating her husband to be.
The blagger pretended to be from the tax office. He gave them everything ? address, pay grade, national insurance number. The next day flashes went off in his face ? the paparazzi had found him.
4.03pm: Rowling is telling how a journalist tried to blag her home address - get her address through deception.
She outlines the technique to Leveson explaining how one day she received a call from someone from the post office.
I recalled two instances of blagging. When I was blagged I realised half way through giving the person details that I was being blagged.
It was shortly after we had moved into the house and I believe the journalist didn't know where we had moved to ... this man said to me ''I am from the post office, I've got a package for you, what's your address?' Then I said 'Wait! You're from the post office, well what does it say on the package?' and he hung up.
4.01pm: Rowling says she has been told she was a target of private investigator Steve Whittamore.
He was paid £665 for his research.
The bulk of what he was trying to do was track down people related to me. He seemed to be making extensive inquiries about my extended family.
3.58pm: She said the whole address of her home in Edinburgh was posted on the internet by an individual ? she thinks this person may have been a previous occupant and had been excited that the Harry Potter author was living there.
I feel that we're already in a vulnerable position. I think the PCC conveniently is not taking a holistic view of the matter.
I don't see why it is in the public interest to know exactly where I live. It is not normal for anyone famous or not famous for their address to be known to millions of newspaper readers or users of the internet.
I can't put an invisibility cloaking device over my house, nor do I wish to.
3.55pm: Rowling is now referring to a process known as "jigsaw identification" whereby someone can identify a person or a location by piecing together different pieces of information in various publications.
She says the "the PCC isn't seeing the wood for the trees" because all readers had to do was piece the newspapers together and they were "virtually given a guided tour" to her house.
3.54pm: Listen to JK Rowling talk about the "most outrageous moment" of press intrusion.
3.51pm: Rowling says the Evening Standard published details of her home in 2007.
She complained and got a one-line letter back saying it had noted the contents of her letter.
It is my experience that certain sectors of the British press, if you lock horns with them or protest or make a complaint, then you can expect some form of retribution fairly quickly.
The attitude seems to be utterly cavalier: 'What difference? What does it matter? You're famous, you're asking for it.'
3.50pm: Rowling says she's not asking for special treatment, but thinks it's "reasonable" that newspapers don't publish her address or photograph of her house.
I have on occasion been the target of unbalanced individuals. I don't want to go into details. On a number of occasions the police have been involved because of incidents or even threats.
I think it's reasonable of me to wish the press would refrain from making my whereabouts so easily identifiable.
3.48pm: Rowling tells how one paper printed addresses and photographs of three of her properties.
3.46pm: Rowling says "there's a general edginess" when photographers are in the vicinity and "even if they're not, there's a general jumpiness".
It's very unnerving to feel like you're being watched, and obviously that impacts on my children.
3.45pm: Rowling cites more examples of a breach of privacy of her children.
She said her youngest daughter was upset that she couldn't pick up an advent calendar because they were going to be photographed, and the paparazzi had "refused to desist".
3.43pm: Rowling says one of the worst incidents came at the height of speculation as to the fate of Harry Potter in the last book.
Her daughter was told the press had heard Harry Potter was going to die.
Rowling said this was a ruse to confirm the character's fate. If the press wanted to know they should have asked her; papers knew there wouldn't be an answer but tried to entrap her child to do so instead.
3.40pm: Rowling says she has only ever dared appear on a beach in a swimsuit twice in 13 years.
I felt an idiot; a fool. It was the second time since 1998 I have on a swimsuit on a public beach. Twice, and I was photographed. The first private; the second I had my guard down.
I assumed wrongly, I forgot myself for a few moments and the result was I was long-lensed again.
Initially ? the general feeling of the people around me was 'leave it'. I felt the same way? but I was very concerned, I knew they must have photographs of the children and sure enough the picture agency told me they had one photograph of the childrena and told me they would destroy it, which I believe they had done because I haven't seen it.
3.35pm: Rowling tells how she gave chase to a paparazzo outside her house a week after she gave birth.
She had been "besieged for a week" by photographers. She then thought they'd gone and went out of the house with her daughter.
She spotted a "long-lensed" photographer and gave chase while pushing a pram.
How I thought I was going to outrun a 20-something paparazzi...my daughter was saying 'calm down, mum calm down, it doesn't matter but it mattered enormously to me.
The cumulative effect [of battling with paparazzi] becomes quite draining
3.33pm: The case in 2008 was initially struck out on the grounds the photo she objected to had been taken in public place and didn't involve harassment.
But the decision was overturned on appeal.
3.31pm: Rowling took a case against a picture agency, Big Pictures on the grounds breach of confidence and privacy about photographs.
Rowling says that she didn't go to the PCC because earlier adjudications hadn't sent a message strong enough.
3.29pm: Rowling says children deserve privacy whether their parents are famous or not.
Where children are concerned it's my personal belief that it's not complex at all. They deserve privacy. They have no choice who their parents are how their parents behave.
A child, no matter who their parents are, deserve privacy.
Where children are concerned the issue is fairly black and white.
3.25pm: Rowling is discussing going on holiday and relaxing on a beach which she thought was private but photographs of her daughter were taken in her swimsuit.
The Press Complaints Commission bans photographs being taken of children without permission of their parents or guardians.
The PCC upheld her complaint.
However Rowling says that photograph was on the internet months after the PCC ruling and an apology and a ruling don't stop it being spread.
Unlike an untruth that is in print, when an image is disseminated it can spread around the world like a virus.
I feel that given fact that an image has a life that cannot be recalled ... I'm sure it is still out there, that's the particular harm of an image.
3.24pm: Audio of Harry Potter author JK Rowling telling the Leveson inquiry how a journalist slipped a note into her daughter's school bag.
3.23pm: Rowling says the Sun correctly reported in March 2009 that Rowling fiercely guarded her privacy.
3.21pm: Rowling said the experience was "incredibly threatening".
I think I've gone to such lengths to prevent photography of my children that they can be in no doubt.
She said she discussed with her publicist why the press wouldn't leave her alone.
Two journalists from a Scottish tabloid were outside my house ... They said it's a boring day at the office. My family and I were literally under surveillance for their amusement.
There's a twist in the stomach as you wonder what do they want, what have they got? It feels incredibly threatening to have people watching you.
3.20pm: Rowling details two other occasions where she feels her privacy has been seriously invaded.
She said her daughter had been photographerd in her swimsuit in the papers and that after she gave birth to her two subsequent children she was besieged by journalists who camped outside her house.
It was like being under seige or being held hostage. It was impossible to go out.
3.17pm: Rowling explains how one day she found a note from a journalist in her daughter's schoolbag.
In the first burst of publicity surrounding [Harry Potter]. I unzipped her school bag in ther evening and among the usual debris that every child generates. I found an envelope addressed to me from a jouranlist.
It's my recollection that the journalist said he intended to ask a mother at the school to put this my daughter's bag. I know no more than that I don't know if that is how the journalist [put it in the bag]
I felt such a sense of invasion that my daughter's bag; It's very difficult to say how angry I felt that my five year old daugher's school was no longer a place of complete security from journalists.
3.15pm: Rowling says she spoke about these areas of her life for a reason.
I do feel quite strongly that as a writer or creative person that life becomes a such important factor in your work. In other words, I was talking about depression because there was a purpose.
3.12pm: Rowling says on occasions she has discussed her own life - broadly speaking there are three areas of her life that are quite private that she has spoken about it.
1. Single parenthood. she has become an ambassador for a charity for lone parents.
2. She also campaigns about MS, her mother died of this. This is one of the upsides of fame.
3. I have talked openly about the fact I suffer depression.
3.12pm: Rowling says:
I was trying hard to abide by what I thought was the unwritten code [in keeping her kids out of the public eye]
I tried very hard to abide by what I thought were the rules and I failed
Rowling says at one event her daughter was "marched into a shot" of her and that made her decide never to take her kids along to public events again
3.11pm: She says she it was no loss to her to refuse the interview.
She explains that she was shocked with how quickly she became famous and that nobody had given her a guidebook on how to respond to the press.
3.09pm: She says when her first book was published she was a single mother.
I wouldn't like to be seen standing in judgment talking a different view, it's my belief that children do best when they are kept out of the public eye and their home life is secure and it feels like a place of safety
I endeavored to draw a clear line.
I had countless requests to photograph me with my daughter," she says. A woman's magazine cancelled an interview with Rowling after she refused to be photographed with her daughter.
3.08pm: Rowling says over the years she has engaged about 50 lawyers to deal with the press.
3.07pm: Rowling says she was forced to move house because journalists were camped outside her house.
She bought her house in 1997 on the proceeds of her first book.
Within two years to 1999 it had become untenable to stay, she tells Leveson.
3.04pm: Rowling's books were published over a 10-year period;, the seventh and last book was published in 2007.
I believe very very strongly in freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and alongside the journalism we will hear about today there is truly heroic journalism.
On one end there are journalists who report on war and famine, and on the other we have behaviour that is "illegal and intrusive".
I wonder sometimes why they are given the same name.
3.03pm: Leveson says he understands Rowling wishes to remain private and that to some extent she is 'blowing on that wish' by appearing at Leveson.
3.02pm: The Leveson inquiry has now resumed.
JK Rowling is dressed in a grey suit and is being sworn in as Joanne Kathleen Rowling.
3.01pm: The Leveson inquiry has taken a break but will be back shortly to hear from JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author.
2.58pm: Piers Morgan has just confirmed he will be giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry.
Gill Penlington, executive editor of Connect the World on CNN, has tweeted:
Piers Morgan confirms to #CNN that he will be giving evidence to #Levenson Inquiry at a later date.
2.52pm: Mosley has submitted information based on the information commissioner's report, What Price Privacy?, about the use of private investigators by the Associated Newspapers.
Associated Newspapers objects to this part of his submission.
Mosley asks the court could he say something:
I hope they won't consider this mendacious smears, the fact that no journalist asked for an illegal act is not the same as saying no journalist would have realised the info they were getting had to be illegally obtained.
2.47pm: Mosley has likened Rupert Murdoch's empire to the mafia.
He has disclosed that he wrote to Rupert Murdoch on 10 March to ask him about the conduct of the News of the World. He says he also sent two emails. Never got a reply, not even from a secretary.
I cannot imagine writing to a proper international company alleging serious misconduct and not get a reply. I'm sorry to say this that to me is the conduct of the mafia. It's what you would expect if you wrote to the head of a mafia family complaining about one of their soldiers you prohbably would get no reply.
You would not expect it from a serious company like News International down in Wapping.
2.45pm: Mosley has moved on from Dacre, but not before this:
The crocodiles kill the animal and then the hyenas come along and scavenge. And he's the scavenger.
2.40pm: Mosley is still talking about Paul Dacre's sex life.
It's really quite sad he should say that to the committee because what he's really saying is that he didn't like something I did sexually in private.
It's an absolutely ludicrous argument.
2.35pm: Mosley is now raising a laugh in the court room by broaching the subject of the sex life of Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.
Here it is in full:
What Dacre said in his speech to the Society of Editors was that I was guilty of 'unimaginable depravity'.
Well, first of all I would say it reflects badly on his imagination. But apart from that
It's not a sensible comment because. I have no idea what Mr Dacre's sex life is like. All I know that is he has this preoccupation with schoolboy smut in his website with all these, Ms X showing off her bikini and Ms Y showing off her suntan etc... So he may have some sort of strange sex life but the point is it's not up to me to go into his bedroom and film and then write about it. It's his business.
And equally if someone's got a slightly unusual sex life, the same thing applies.
The law is very clear, if it's private, it's adult and it's consensual, then it concerns nobody else. The moment you go into that area and you say, I don't really what that person is doing - lots of people do things I don't like, it's not for me to tell them not to ...
It's a completely old-fashioned idea, that dates from the days, for example when I was young when it was illegal to be gay and all sorts of sexual activities which some people find quite normal were criminal offences even between a man and a woman.
All that's been changed, the world has moved on. The only person who hasn't moved on is Mr Dace.
He's completely naive obviously about sex. The women in my little party - they're more into it than I've ever been. They all do these things in their private lives and that's how they are. Mr Dacre may not approve of it but we live in a civilised society where consenting adults are allowed to do what they want.
2.31pm: Mosley says the reason I went to Strasbourg is because he thought there was "no chance" of getting a change in the law because the system was in the thrall of Rupert Mudoch.
That spell has been broken fairly conclusively. The case for prior notification is unanswerable. It's absolutely clear that it's the right thing.
The only outstanding issue is how would you arrange your tribunal ? that is costly.
2.26pm: Mosley took a case to Europe to try and force newspapers to give prior notification to subjects of stories.
He lost his case:
Here's the background from the Guardian article reporting this at the time:
Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a "chilling effect" on the press.
The ruling by the European court of human rights in Strasbourg will mark the last stage in Mosley's campaign for tighter privacy laws following revelations about his sex life in the News of the World
2.25pm: If it weren't for the dam bursting you would have got your injunction, suggests Robert Jay for the inquiry.
Mosley didn't know anything about the News of the World article until 10am on the morning it was published and by then it was too late to seek an injunction.
2.24pm: Leveson and Mosley are now discussion the balance of freedom of expression and public interest.
Mosley says
What's dangerous is to allow the editor of a tabloid to weigh this up when all he really wants to do it sell newspapers
2.22pm: For those who have come to the blog looking for JK Rowling - she is expected to take the stand next.
Max Mosley, who had a successful privacy case against the News of the World, is still giving evidence.
2.22pm: Mosley calls for a tribunal system which would allow members of the public take legal action against newspapers at no cost.
2.21pm: And another one:
There's no remedy. It's like going to court with a broken leg and they break the other leg with absolute privilege.
2.19pm: Another Mosley gem:
Invasion of privacy is worse than burglary. You can replace things that have been taken repair damage, but if someone invades you privacy, you can never repair the damage.
2.16pm: Mosley on why privacy doesn't exist in the current system
It is the very cases egregious breach of privacy are the cases where they don't tell you.
Mosley says Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre suggested before a select committee that in 99 cases out of 100 the subject of a story is notified.
2.15pm: Mosley on why privacy actions are almost pointless.
In a nutshell, in a privacy matter once the information has been made public it can never ever be made private again. Therefore the only effective measure is to stop it becoming public
2.13pm: Mosley discloses the personal financial cost of his legal battles following the expose by the News of the World.
It's well over £500,000 and it's ongoing
2.12pm: Mosley says he would have sued the photographers who were trying to take pictures of him collecting his son's personal possessions after his death.
2.10pm: Mosley is describing how the journalists descended up on his son's home when he went to collect his personal effects.
I thought it was absolutely outrageous that they took photographs in that situation. You are desperate situation.
What to me was so horrifying was there was no sense that this matters.
They have no human feeling at all
2.09pm: His son died in May 2009.
He was struggling with it. The News of the World story had the most devastating effect on him. He really couldn't bear it. For your son to see pictures of his father ... he really couldn't bear it. He went back on the drugs.
It would be wrong to say he committed suicide, that was clear from the circumstances
Like many people on hard drugs it's extremely dangerous - you make a small mistake and you die. That's what happened.
2.08pm: Mosley tells the hearing about his son, who has died.
My son was a drug addict. He was one of these people, extremely intelligent ... but like a lot of intelligent people he suffered from depression. The only way he could deal with this was by drugs.
2.07pm: I cannot believe this is done for any other purpose than to intimidate, says Mosley about judges. Leveson says Judges often make the headlines but don't say anything.
2.07pm: Mosley says he was told Brooks and Dacre agreed to joint campaign against Judge Eady by a former senior employee of News International.
2.05pm: He explains how News Group has denied phone hacking in the face of evidence to the contrary
Because they denied the for Neville interview, they denied they had more than one journalist in involved in hacking, became obvious when Edmondson was fired...I could go on
2.04pm: Mosley is back and talking about a campaign against Mr Justice Eady by Associated Newspapers and News Group Newspapers.
In Rebekah Brooks case she could deny for England
2.04pm: The inquiry has resumed and Max Mosley is still giving evidence.
1.59pm: Tom Watson, the Labour MP has just tweeted this:
More investors plan to vote against James Murdoch at the BSkyB AGM. See the question 9: http://www.proxydemocracy.org/data/meetings/30515
1.52pm: While we are waiting for JK Rowling to appear, you can watch this Guardian film on "no win, no fee" legal actions:
1.09pm: Leveson has broken for lunch and will resume with JK Rowling at 2pm.
Here's a roundup of the developments this morning.
? Sienna Miller reveals she was verbally abused and spat at by photographers who would pursue her, sometimes at high speed.
? Horribly, I accused my friends and family of leaking stories, she says. Then she discovered her phone had been hacked. News of the World investigator Glenn Mulcaire had numbers for 10 of her friends and family.
? I would find myself running down street at midnight chased by 10 men. That was "a very intimidating situation" says Miller.
? Miller said she felt like she was in a video game
? Formula One boss Max Mosley said News International was out to "destroy" him.
? Mosley is taking legal action in 22 countries and suing Google in France and German He is battling to get references to Nazi removed in search results.
? Mosley says sexual activities are nobody's business if they are not harmful and are conducted among consenting adults
? Solicitor tells Leveson that a PCC with teeth' won't work
1.05pm: Robert Jay, QC for the inquiry, says there was "some bad taste reporting" of the judgment in favour of Mosley.
He points out that one newspaper couldn't resist the line: "The day freedom of the press got spanked".
It's not just the Sun, Mosley adds.
Mosley says, finally: "They were very proud of what they'd done."
1.01pm: Mosley is now talking about personal injury and the loss of a limb.
He says if someone went to court and told a judge they would about to have a accident "it's inconceivable that he wouldn't stop it".
So why isn't it the same with privacy?
Any revelation of privacy can be stopped by a judge. If they ambush you and they publish it no judge on Earth can stop it.
12.57pm: Mosley says it is unfortunate that all his good work on road safety in Formula One has been overshadowed.
You work all your life to try achieve something useful. when this came out I got to the age of 68 and for however long I live for now, that's what people think of me when they hear my name.
12.55pm: Mosley adds:
The function of the tabloid journalist to pillory people who like something unusual is completely outdated. It's extraordinary that the tabloid press don't recognise that.
12.47pm: Mosley, who is exceptionally composed given intimate details of his life are being discussed, says a person's sexual activities are nobody's business but their own.
If you could breach privacy merely because you disapproved of something, you would be all over the place.
Sexual behaviour covers a huge variety of things, and when you start analysing it, what I might like someone else would hate and vice versa. Where do you stop
The rational then, is provide you are consenting adults, and provided it is in private; then it is nobody else'e business.
it is the John Stuart Mill attitude rather than the disapproving moral attitude the law recognises if you are not doing any harm to anybody you should be allowed to do whatever you like.
12.46pm: Leveson now intervenes:
The question that's obviously going to have to be asked is whether that state of mind is limited to one reporter or one newspaper or is limited to others.
It's not just Mr Thurlbeck ... the question is, is this a pervasive perception? If it isn't then I want to know it.
12.43pm: News of the World editor Colin Myler admitted the email "could be interpreted as a threat" but said they were not blackmail.
In his judgment against the News of the World, high court judge Justice Eady said it was "a remarkable state of affairs" that Myler failed to admonish Thurlbeck over his 'threatening' emails to the women.
Mosley tells Leveson:
Coming from a high court judge I think that's quite impressive. It's completely symptomatic of their entire attitude.
12.40pm: Mosley says the prospect of being identified by the News of the World was "terrifying" for these women.
[What Thurlbeck was saying] was if you don't co-operate we will publish your pictures unpixellated.
Three of them had very serious positions; one of them serious scientist, another had a position in health care, one ran on office, only one of them was what you might call fairly anonymous. They were all terribly at risk. The admirable thing is that they did not succumb to it.
12.37pm: Leveson has just heard two letters or emails from Neville Thurlbeck to one of the women involved in the orgy, one of which has been suggested was blackmail.
Thurlbeck told the women would be paid a substantial sum of money plus anonymity if they gave the NoW an interview ? "it puts you in the driving seat".
He says in an email that they would like to identify the women for a follow-up story but their preference was a first-hand account of their experience with Mosley.
12.35pm: Audio of Max Mosley talking about the News of the World orgy story over which he successfully took legal action.
12.35pm: 12.32pm: Mosley is now talking about the covert filming of him at the orgy.
Woman E, as she was known in court, was fitted with a secret camera in her lapel. The News of the World reporter Neville Thurlbeck instructed her before she went into the party.
If you get him to do the Sieg Heil, get him to stand back three metres, so we can sit in the shot.
Thurlbeck was trying to set the whole thing up from the beginning about it being a Nazi episode.
Mosley explained this woman was "a modern German" and would have been horrified if there was anything Nazi going on and the News of the World had a preconceived idea of what the story was before it set her up.
12.30pm:Max Mosley tells Leveson he has brought proceedings against suing Google in France and Germany and considering in California to stop it generating search results involving references to him which have already been ruled to be untrue by a British court.
12.29pm: Mosley explains the scale of the operation to remove the "Nazi" material from the internet.
His lawyers have succesfully got the references removed from 193 websites in Germany.
They have also launched legal action in 22 or 23 countries.
It's just an ongoing process because I'm trying to do everything I can to get this video removed from the web.
12.28pm: Mosley says only the rich can afford to take on the newspapers, something solicitor Mark Lewis also said yesterday.
Unless you are very very fortunate to have a bit of money you simply can't take these things on.
12.26pm: Mosley explains why he took the paper to court over the Nazi article. He wanted to prove the News of the World were "liars".
By taking the matter to court, the entire private information I was complaining about would be rehearsed again in public with the press present.
By going to court, I was augmenting to a degree to which the public were aware of it [the Nazi orgy story].
But what they had done was so outrageous, I wanted to get these people into the witness box and prove they were liars.
He said it was at great risk to himself but he needed to.
Even if I went to some obscure place in the Andes, within weeks people would know [thanks to the video the News of the World put on the internet].
12.23pm: Mosley says it would a costly decision to take the News of the World to court and it was also embarrassing for him but he was determined to clear his name of all Nazi allegations.
If he lost it would cost £1m or more; if he won it would still cost tens of thousands.
12.19pm: Robert Jay QC is now asking questions about the legal action Mosley took against News of the World in July 2008.
The judgment was handed down on 24 July 24 2008.
It was explained to Mosley if he had taken libel proceedings, instead of privacy proceedings, it would have taken 18 months.
He decided that was too long, because he wanted to prove the Nazi allegations were not true as quickly as possible.
12.18pm: Mosley confirms that the Sky News interview with the woman appeared after the trial in which he won £60,000 against the News of the World for wrongly accusing him of being a Nazi.
12.17pm: Mosley alleges that the News of the World's Neville Thurlbeck offered £8,000 to one of the women to sign an interview he had pre-written and intimated if she didn't sign it her face would be unpixellated.
The woman who was supposed to have given the interview appeared on Sky television and said there was no truth in the Nazi allegation.
12.16pm: Undercover video of Mosley went all over the world.
Jay says that the News of the World briefly took down the video after complaints from Mosley's solicitors, then put it up again.
12.15pm: When he saw the News of the World splash, he was outraged. He thought it was an invasion of his privacy, but the Nazi allegation outraged him.
I thought it was outrageous and illegal but the Nazi allegation was completely untrue, and to me particularly extremely damaging and I was outraged by that.
12.14pm: Mosley says the paper didn't contact him for a reason.
"That was to avoid any danger of me finding out about the article and ordering an injunction to stop it. I first learnt of it at about 10am on the Sunday morning."
12.12pm:The inquiry is now referring to a News of the World article that Mosley sued over headlined "Fomula One boss has sick Nazi orgy with five hookers".
The paper gave him no forewarning of the article.
The first Mosley heard of it was 10am on a Sunday morning.
12.10pm: Mosley says he has never sought publicity in his job.
"It's a bit like a hotel: if it's run properly, you never see the manager."
12.07pm: Mosley tells the Leveson inquiry about his professional background.
Here's a bit of his background in relation to the press:
Max Mosley won £60,000 in his privacy action against the News of the World over a 2008 article that had falsely accused him of taking part in a "sick Nazi orgy". In his judgment, Mr Justice Eady said that Mosley had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to his sexual activities no matter how unconventional. He found no evidence of Nazi themes in the orgy and said Mosley's life had been ruined. Earlier this month a French court ordered the publisher of the News of the World to pay ?32,000 in costs and damages to Mosley in a second privacy action over the 2008 article.
12.06pm: Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss, has now taken the stand.
11.59am: The Leveson inquiry has now taken a short break.
11.58am: Thomson is now talking about Heather Mills.
A person other than Piers Morgan admitted to her at Mirror Group that her phone had been accessed.
11.57am: For those coming late to the live blog - Sienna Miller's testimony was brief.
However she revealed she had been "verbally abused and spat at" by photographers who constantly pursued her, sometimes at high speed.
She said she changed her mobile phone three times yet stories about her private were still appearing in the papers, on a weekly basis.
"Horribly, I accused my friends and family of leaking stories," she told Leveson.
She said sometimes she would find myself running down street at midnight chased by 10 men. That was "a very intimidating situation to be in".
She eventually heard from the police that her phone had been hacked - the notes of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire included copies of her pin number to her voicemail and numbers of 10 of her friends and family.
She then realised hacking was the source of the stories.
11.52am: Thomson on the internet:
"Parts of the internet are the wild west, we all know that."
11.51am: Leveson now interjects and says all of that is very difficult to prove.
11.50am: Thomson tells the hearing that newspapers indulge in a practice he calls "story laundering".
If the paper can't publish a story in the UK, it will wait till it gets out in the US and then go 'aha' now we can publish it.
I have firm evidence and inferences and anecdotal evidence from other lawyers but if I go into the details I will breach injunctions. One client the story was laundered - it was planted in America and then reported it a week later, saying the US press have reported it so we can report it. That's what I call story laundering
Thomson says that papers will use Twitter to get names out into the public domain so they can identify their targets.
Sometimes they might use social media ... Twitter has been used to identify the names. I think there has been evidence before the court that this is a campaign of jigsaw identification
11.40am: Thomson told Sienna Miller that she might have to move to France where there are privacy laws to escape the paparazzi.
When Sienna couldn't take living in England anymore I said you've got choices: ignore, fight or move to Paris.
11.38am: Thomson explains the harassment order he obtained against photographers camped outside the home of the mother of Hugh Grant's baby were unnamed.
He says no lawyer will take a case like is on on a no-win no-fee basis.
11.34am: Thomson says little has been learned since new guidelines were introduced in the wake of Princess Diana's death.
It is truly frightening to see a news mob in pursuit. The pursuits are dangerous. I've recommended clients film it ... I've seen them and they are frightening.
11.34am: Thomson says in 2000 when the Human Rights Act came in the red-tops stopped notifying.
He says he has only sued the broadsheets twice for confidence or invasion of privacy.
11.32am: Thomson says for the second time that the Daily Mail, unlike the red tops, is the exception.
It does tend to notify [his clients about an upcoming story].
My experience of the tabloids is that it's the intrusive stories that are of great concern. It's what they would want on the front page of a Sunday newspaper ... if they do notify they would do so at the last possible moment - on a Saturday afternoon when someone's shopping.
11.31am: Thomson says the media are making the calculation that suing on something private is going to be embarrasing for his clients.
The bigger the story and perhaps the more intrusive the photograph the less likely the newspaper to notify is.
They want to sell newspaper, they don't want to be injuncted, they don't notify
The media don't want to be stopped but realise that to sue on something that's private is difficult. ...And the media win by not notifying.
11.30am: Thomson says the red tops tend "less and less" to contact his clients pre publication.
If they say and there's an intrusive photograph in their garden or semi-naked, it's pretty obvious a lawyer may instruct counsel to seek a court order immediately.
11.27am: Thomson says the most damaging publications can be the online platforms of large publications.
If a blogger has a following of 100 and 150 it's not worth complaining about them, says Thomson. It is "self-defeating" because it will bring attention to the blog.
If you end up worrying about every blogger ... you will end up paranoid and mad
11.25am: Thomson says the mooted "PCC Plus" won't work because the paps are outside its control.
Some of the worst offenders are photographic agencies and paparazzi and the PCC can't control them.
My view is an effective regulator has to deal with news-gathering persons wherever they are from in this country ... a lot of them have NUJ cards.
As long as they have great photographs of people getting angry or crying ... they'll publish the photographs.
11.24am: The Guardian has just published this story on the arrest of an individual in Milton Keynes under Operation Tuleta, the investigation into alleged computer hacking by the press.
11.23am: He said he contacted the PCC regarding the 'harassment' of the mother of Hugh Grant's paper. They contacted the papers, but in the end it didn't work.
Ultimately if the media and the paps want to do it, they will do it anyway which is why we had to get a court order.
11.22am: He claims that the 'red tops' and mid market papers don't want the PCC to work.
11.20am: He is talking now about the Independent Television Commission about the investigation into Carlton TV's documentary The Connection which wrongly claimed there was a new opium route from south America using fake witnesses.
Carlton was fined £2m.
I really don't think that just a few adjustments to the PCC will work. The only way if parliament wants proper regulation it has to be something like the Independent Television Commission.
Unless that happens a PCC with a few extra teeth isn't going to work in my view
Thomson says that the PCC should be given the power to fine and to order corrections be made on specific pages in a newspaper.
11.16am: Thomson is talking about a complaint he took on behalf of Hugh Grant to the PCC in relation to the Mirror. It took them 12 months to adjudicate.
They were slow and their concern was the impact of an adjudication on possible future proceedings. they wear too many hats ... they appear to be their trade body ... they try and mediate at the same time. In small part they're effective.
The PCC wear too many hats, they appear to act for the media - the appear to be their trade union spokesman, other times the act as independent, they try and mediate
11.15am: A media lawyer who acts for hacking targets including Miller and her ex-husband Jude Law, Thomson secured one of the first major payouts for a hacking victims, winning £100,000 plus damages for Miller from News International. Sherborne claimed in his opening remarks to the inquiry that Thomson was also placed under surveillance by News International because of his work for hacking clients who were taking on the News of the World.
Thomson also represented interior designer Kelly Hoppen, an ex-partner of former Arsenal and England footballer Sol Campbell, who accepted damages of £60,000 from NI after it also admitted hacking her mobile phone. A former partner at Schillings, Thomson represented Naomi Campbell in her landmark privacy action against the Daily Mirror in 2002.
11.13am: Mark Thomson, the solicitor, is now taking the stand.
11.12am: Miller has now finished giving her evidence.
11.11am: In her written statement Miller says her relationships were damaged.
It's hard to quantify in words, it's more the state of mind you are in as a result of that level of intrusion and surveillance which is just complete anxiety and paranoia.
I realise there are far more serious cases than me, the Dowlers and the McCanns...
I had to fight tooth and nail to get the freedom I have now. It was this breeding of mistrust ... nobody could understand how this information was coming out. It was impossible to leave any sort of normal life at that time.
11.08am: Miller received £100,000 from News International for hacking but says she is still waiting for "full disclosure" of documentation about the surveillance operation carried out on the publisher's behalf.
It was not about financial compensation. I wanted to understand the extent of the information they had on me. I wanted to know who knew about all these information ... who had been listening to me. It's the feeling of people talking about you behind your back on not being able to confront it. It was very frustrating.
So far it's been very unsatisfactory what I've received [from News Group Newspapers].
11.06am: She reveals that private investigator Glenn Mulcaire had also hacked her friends.
I felt terrible. These were people who had never done anything remotely public who were under constant surveillance by this man. It just seemed very crude looking at these notes [of Mulcaire's]
The notes included all the mobile numbers she had changed over three months, pin numbers for her voice mail access, the password for her email that was later used to hack her computer in 2008.
There were also "about 10 numbers" of friends and family.
There was just this web of surveillance which makes it very easy to understand how they were getting this information. everyone close to me was being monitored.
11.05am: Miller says that the stories about her would often be written by anonymous journalists. Which was almost an admission on their part that they were behaving unethically.
11.04am: The Mirror apology said:
On Saturday 12 March we printed picturess of Miller ... we said that Sienna's boozy antics had shocked guests and that she had behaved in an unprofessional manner.
We are happy to point out that she was not drunk and did not behave unprofessionally. In fact she was playing with a sick child ...
11.03am: In the apology, the Mirror said it was happy to point out that Sienna was not drunk in this photograph.
11.01am: Miller is talking about a charity event she attended for sick children, the Starlight Ball.
There was a very sick child in the corner of a room and I was pretending to die and someone took a photograph and the Mirror published the photograph and said I was drunk.
It looks awful. ... I complained, I sued, I won. They printed an apology that was miniscule, irrelevant
At that point the damage was done.
11.01am: Miller on the constant surveillance
I felt like I was living in some sort of video game. people pre-empting my every single move
10.59am: Miller says she was afraid to go out of the house.
"The effect it had in my life was really damaging for me and for friends
It made it very difficult to leave the house ..I felt violated, and paranoid and anxious constantly.
10.57am: Miller on those who hacked her phone
It's outrageous, it's unfathomable to feel like they can justify doing this.
The ramifications on people's lives are rarely considered by the people who are doing it.
10.55am: Miller sat her friends and family down in the room after a piece of information that only four people knew about, and accused them of selling the story.
She now knows it wasn't a betrayal by a friend but it was phone hacking.
"There was one particular very private piece of information that only four people knew about. A journalist phoned up saying they knew about it so I accused my family ... of selling the story.
The fact they had this information was that they had been accessing my phone messages and those of people around me
10.54am: David Barr, QC for the Leveson inquiry is asking her about 2005 and 2006.
She said almost on a weekly basis extremely private information would be published in the papers about her.
She ended up changing her mobile three times in a three months.
Miller says that she has a "tight group" of friends and family who have never sold a story about her - even though "they have been offered large sums of money". It was baffling how private conversations kept making their way into stories, she says, and started accusing friends and family of selling stories.
Horribly I accused my friends and family of selling stories and they accused each other as well.
10.54am: I hope some form of change comes to our media, Miller says. She points out that there are respectable journalists but there are "grand differences" between publications. "I'm very happy to be giving evidence," Millers says.
10.53am: Miller says she was very nervous taking on the press.
It was daunting
10.50am: Miller is talking about being tailed by photographers in cars.
She describes it as "highly illegal driving" and recalls "there was a near incident where a near pregnant lady was nearly knocked down.
Thiswas a daily concern ... it causes you to drive dangerously and them to drive dangerously.
It's terrifying...
I'd often find myself running down the street at midnight on my own with 10 men chasing me. ... that's a very intimidating situation to be in.
10.49am: Miller is now on the stand
She says she was relentlessly pursued by 10 to 15 men daily.
She says she was verbally abused, spat at, anything to get "an emotional reaction".
10.39am: The mystery Leveson witness, HJK, has now finished, we hear from our colleagues at the courts.
Sienna Miller will take the stand shortly we expect
10.35am: Here's the Met Police statement about the arrest under Operation Tuleta, an investigation into alleged computer hacking on behalf of the press.
This morning, Thursday, 24 November officers from Operation Tuleta arrested a 52-year-old man [1] on suspicion of Computer Misuse Act offences.
The man is currently in custody at a Thames Valley Police station.
Operation Tuleta is investigating a number of allegations regarding breach of privacy, received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) since January 2011, which fell outside the remit of Operation Weeting, including computer hacking.
10.33am: Sean O'Neill, crime editor of The Times, has just tweeted
@TimesCrime: 52yo man arrested in Milton Keynes by officers from Op Tuleta investigating alleged computer hacking by the press
10.21am: Live coverage is expected to start after 10.30 when the mystery witness, whose evidence is being heard in private, is over.
James Robinson and Dan Sabbagh are down at court 73 and you can follow them on twitter @jamesro47 and @dansabbagh.
Josh Halliday and I are on the keyboards on the live blog again today. Contact us or follow us at @lisaocarroll and @JoshHalliday.
Here's the order for the day
? HJK (in private)
? Sienna Miller
? Mark Thomson
? Max Mosley
? J K Rowling
10.15am: Just a reminder that today's live coverage of the Leveson inquiry is starting late because the first hearing is closed to the public and press.
Testimony is being heard from an anonymous member of the public , known as HJK, who had a relationship with an unidentified celebrity. The barrister David Sherborne told the Leveson inquiry that a newspaper doorstepped HJK out of the blue in 2006, and that the News of the World subsequently hacked their phone. "The effect on HJK was profound," Sherborne said. "The story about the quintessentially private relationship almost hit the headlines, but was displaced by another story which, thankfully, blew up the same day." HJK was also followed by a photographer who took pictures shortly after they had been diagnosed with a serious illness, prompting them to fear newspapers had obtained sensitive medical information. "HJK would not be the first to have suffered such a fate," Sherborne said.
09.45am: So how did the papers who came in for criticism from the McCanns cover the story today?
The Daily Star, which carried stories which were described as "disgusting" by Gerry McCann yesterday, puts the story on its front page. But it leads on criticism for another newspaper - the News of the World which had to apologise for printing Kate's private diaries. The Star later refers to Express Newspapers and its libel settlement, before pointing out that Kate said "all newspapers and broadcasters" had shown them contempt.
The Daily Express downplays the story altogether, putting it on what's known as the 'graveyard' page, page 2. The broad-brush story only mentions Express Newspapers in the final paragraph, referring to its front page apology and £550,000 libel damages.
The Daily Mirror gives it a double page spread on page 10 and 11. "Madeleine's parents reveal their horror at stories in the press".
Here's a summary of the media stories
9.30am: Good morning. Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
Today's hearing starts slightly later than usual - we expect about 10.30am as the first witness, code-named HJK, will be heard in private.
Yesterday Gerry and Kate McCann made an impassioned plea for press reform with a shocking account of their life in the aftermath of the abduction of their daughter Madeleine describing the "disgusting" and "offensive" stories written about them.
Today promises to be just as uncomfortable for the press with actress Sienna Miller and Harry Potter author JK Rowling giving testimony. Miller and Rowling will bookend the day, speaking first and last.
Miller's case stands out because, unlike other cases, News International also admitted liability for computer or email hacking.
Rowling's testimony will be exceptional too - she has guarded her privacy and has never spoken about the press before.
Barrister David Sherborne last week told the inquiry in his opening statement that she will describe how photographers have tailed her and how her children have had notes placed in their school bag by paparazzi.
Solicitor Mark Thomson will take the stand next. He has acted for phone hacking victims including Hugh Grant.
He will be followed by the former Formula One boss Max Mosley who won a privacy action against the News of the World in July 2008.
Comments have been switched off the Leveson blogs for legal reasons
George Clooney Guy Ritchie Gwen Stefani gwyneth paltrow Halle Berry Hannah Montana Hayden Panettiere Heath Ledger Heather Locklear Heidi Klum Heidi Montag Hilary Duff Hogans Hugh Heffner Hugh Laurie Jada Pinkett-Smith Jamie Lynn Spears Jennifer Aniston Jennifer Garner Jennifer Hudson Jennifer Lopez Jennifer Love Hewitt Jessica Alba Jessica Biel Jessica Simpson
