The men accused in the Victoria Beckham kidnap case were duped and theNews of the World flouted the code of practice, writes Roy Greenslade
I was sitting in an American hotel last November when the sensational news of a plot to kidnap Victoria Beckham was broadcast. My eyebrows went up when I heard that the crime had been "foiled by the News of the World". Surely, I said to myself, this has to be the work of the paper's notorious investigations editor, Mazher Mahmood, the fake sheikh, the man reputed to have put 200 miscreants behind bars in the past 10 years. It was no surprise when the case against the alleged kidnappers collapsed on Monday.
Once I read the story - by Mahmood, as I suspected - I discovered that it raised more questions than it settled about the so-called international terror gang. As is so often the case with such News of the World stories, this one clearly relied on an "underworld informant" (though he should more properly be called an informer). Nothing necessarily wrong with that because exposing crime in the public interest is one of journalism's highest callings and therefore, occasionally, it is justified to take extreme measures. But it all seemed so neat. Could we believe that five men who had been in Britain for only a short time, some without a criminal record, at least one with professional qualifications, had suddenly, of their own volition, decided to kidnap one of the most famous people in the world?
So I began to investigate further, asking what role the informer - or, in this case, two informers - had played in the alleged conspiracy. By January, having read the voluminous transcripts of the audio and visual tape recordings made by the News of the World, my suspicions had been confirmed. None of the evidence indicated to me that these five men had been involved in a plot. There were no plans, just vague conversations, during which some of the "gang" appeared to be treating it all as an elaborate joke. I was convinced that they were the dupes of a sting operation.
The transcripts would suggest to any reasonable, objective observer that they were largely a bunch of people living on the margins of society who were being manipulated. At every turn, the key speaker is the sinister figure who is secretly recording what they say and filming them through a tiny buttonhole camera.
After poring over the documents I think it justifiable to argue that one man acted as an agent provocateur. It is he who suggests the kidnapping, who produces a gun, and who leads them to the Beckhams' house.
That visit to the Beckhams also produces one of the most farcical - but, seen from a different perspective, most serious - moments in the whole sordid saga. The informer, who is wired up, is told by one of the News of the World team hidden in a nearby van to move aside so that the paper's photographer can get a clear view to take a picture.
I couldn't publish my findings because of the law of contempt, even though it might have shortened the ordeal for the men who were wrongly held in custody.
The sad truth is that the News of the World and Mahmood have been operating for too long in a journalistic and legal grey area. There have been too many cases in which there have been doubts about the paper's methods. Judges have raised questions about the thin line between exposing crime and stimulating it.
The fact that the judge stopped the case because the central witness had been paid by the News of the World shows how cavalier the paper has become. It flouted the editors' code of practice. The clause outlawing payments to witnesses is very clear, yet the paper happily paid £10,000 to its informer.
Doubtless it will argue that the payment was authorised before the story was published, and therefore it could not be certain he would be a witness. In fact, Mahmood's request for his payment, marked urgent, was made just three days before publication and the men's arrest in an operation where the police worked hand in hand with the News of the World. The man was not only going to be a prosecution witness; he was bound to be the main witness.
I am delighted that the judge has asked the attorney general to consider the matter, though I don't hold out any real hope that anything radical will occur. It's unlikely that the News of the World and Mahmood will face a police investigation.
The Press Complaints Commission could well take a closer look and might even issue one of its censures. But the News of the World editor at the time, Rebekah Wade, who vehemently defended Mahmood last year, has moved on to the Sun.
It is all very unsatisfactory. Five men have spent six months in jail, public money has been wasted, and to what end? A tawdry "scoop"; extra sales; another squalid episode in the annals of popular journalism.
- Roy Greenslade is professor of journalism at City University in London