By bizn_fun 
Paul Dacre is next asked about evidence he gave on oath at the Leveson Inquiry in 2012.
He was asked during the inquiry about work undertaken for the Daily Mail by private investigator Steve Whittamore, and whether he accepted it was a possibility that some of the inquiries “could not be justified” by the explanations given.
Dacre responded at Leveson:
“I would accept there was a prima facie case that Whittamore could have been acting illegally.
“I don’t accept that this is evidence that our journalists were actively behaving illegally.
“We have to know the facts, whether there was a public interest.
“We don’t know what the journalists asked for, we don’t know what it related to and whether it actually was provided, whether the information was actually provided.”
Whittamore is accused of unlawful acts, including obtaining ex-directory numbers and other private information, by the claimants in this trial.
Whittamore has said in written evidence that he was “working to order” for Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) and never provided information beyond what was requested.
Did Dacre ‘know what journalists asked for’?
Sherborne pushes Dacre in particular on his statement to Leveson that “we don’t know what journalists asked for”.
Surely it was known, based on evidence in ANL invoices to private investigators, Sherborne argues.
He uses a particular example, which he says suggests journalists had asked for a “CR [criminal record] check”.
ANL has accepted Whittamore’s evidence in full, Sherborne points out to Dacre – as he tried to suggest this contradicts what Dacre told Leveson.
Dacre tells the court he was not aware of ANL accepting Whittamore’s testimony.
“I haven’t discussed this case in that kind of detail with [counsel for ANL]. I’m not familiar with the intricacies of witness statements,” he says.
Dacre maintains that he does not accept Whittamore would only provide details he was asked to obtain.
He rejects David Sherborne’s suggestion that his explanation is “completely untrue”.