Brett V. Sss

Mr. Brett was the legal manager at Times Newspaper Ltd (TNL) for over 30 years. The junior reporter at Times Mr. Patrick Foster told Brett that he had found the identity of an unknown internet blogger known as “Nightjack” on 20th may 2009. This “Nightjack” was used by DC Horton of Lancashire Constabulary that was based on his life as a police officer. Brett was informed by Foster of this and asked for publishing the Horton’s identity. Foster declared that Horton was using confidential police information and it was breach of police regulations. Foster further told that he identified Horton by hacking the Nightjack’s email account.

Mr. Brett told foster that it was impermissible and story could not be published because facts were obtained unlawfully.

On 15 March 2012, Mr. Brett gave evidence before the Leveson Inquiry. ***

Later SRA brought a case before SDT against Brett. They claimed that there was a breach of rule 1.02, failing to act with integrity and rule 11.01, misled the court. While Brett acknowledged that Foster obtained information by hacking Horton’s email account. However, he did not accept that he was under a duty to breach PF's confidence. He rather said it was misunderstanding of the prioritization of his competing duties and he was not under any duty to do so.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal discovered the charges demonstrated past sensible uncertainty. It was said that Brett used his own words as a baseless allegations in his letter to Olwsang in spite of the fact that Foster had hacked into it. Meanwhile Brett had taken no steps to correct that understanding. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that he had the dilemma between his duty to the court and his duty to protect information provided by Foster. They said his duty should be towards the court. The court was misled and Brett knowingly allowed the court to be misled under the above