Blog
In May 2009, the still anonymous 'Jack Night' explained to ''The Independent'' why he had begun his blog in February 2008: "I wanted to write about where I think police reform has taken us in the 20 years that I have been in the force ..!-- Removed interpolation by the journalist, strictly speaking therefore, Horton's comments have not been cut. --> because I don't think the changes are always good." According to Paul Mason in April 2009, the anonymous blog's "value lies in the truthfulness of what's described and the honesty with which the author confronts his own reaction to events." Legal affairs writer David Allen Green wrote in April 2012 that: "NightJack was a perfect example of the value of blogging, providing a means — otherwise unavailable — by which an individual could inform and explain in the public interest."David Allen GreeControversy over identity
In a controversial and landmark decision in 2009, Mr Justice Eady refused to grant an order to protect the anonymity of Richard Horton. The judge ruled any right of privacy on the part of Horton would be likely to be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer had been making such contributions. In the case of evidence acquired by hacking, however, the applicable laws do not contain a public interest defence. That hacking was the means by which evidence had been acquired was not disclosed to the court.Lisa O'Carrol''The Times'' hacking controversy
In 2012, it was revealed that Patrick Foster, then a reporter at ''The Times'', had used computer hacking to establish Richard Horton's identity. Horton's intention to sue ''The Times'' for damages was subsequently reported, and in October 2012 ''The Times'' settled with Horton for £42,500 plus costs. On 29 August 2012, the police arrested Patrick Foster as part of Scotland Yard's Operation Tuleta investigation into computer hacking. Two years later, he was cautioned but the decision was made not to prosecute him. In December 2013, Alastair Brett, former legal manager of ''The Times'', was suspended from practising his profession for six months by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after they ruled that Brett had deliberately misled the High Court in Horton's application for an injunction. A disclosure that evidence of Horton's identity had been obtained by hacking his email address had not been made by Brett to counsel for either party or to Mr Justice Eady.References
External links