Leveson Inquiry and The Times: email exchanges over anonymous police blogger May 19, 2009: Patrick Foster to Martin Barrow, then home news editor at The Times: "Martin, sorry to bother you. Do you have five minutes to have a quick chat about a story away from the desk, down here in the glass box perhaps? James Harding says email hacking happened shortly before this May 20: Foster to Barrow: "Alastair (Brett) on side...am trying to talk it out of the paper this sat for three reasons...want little more space between the dirty deed and publishing." May 30: Foster to Brett: "Alastair, I cracked it. I can do the whole lot from purely publicly accessible information. May 30: Brett to Foster: "Brilliant - that may be the golden bullet. Can you set it out on paper? June 4 [after High Court hearing before Mr Justice Eady at which Times fought injunction stopping it naming NightJack blogger] Memo from Brett to David Chappell, then managing editor of The Times, and to James Harding: "I first saw Patrick Foster on or about 19 May [about NightJack]... he then said he had gained access to the blogger's email account and got his name. This raised immediate alarm bells with me...I told Patrick "never ever think of doing what you have done again." I said he might just have a public interest defence if anyone ever found out how stupid he'd been... I became aware of the possibility that Patrick's access to Horton's email account could constitute a breach of section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act [which has no public interest defence]. June 14 [on eve of Mr Justice Eady's decision being made public] Chappell to deputy editor Keith Blackmore: "Are we now stuck in a position of having to run something because of the legal processes?...What do we do about Patrick?" June 14 [after Times had been given notification of Eady's decision] Chappell to Brett: "If we publish a piece by Patrick saying how he pieced together the identity (for which Eady praises him!) what happens if subsequently it is shown that he had accessed the files? What are the ramifications for him, you and the editor - does our decision to publish knowing there had been a misdemeanour indicate complicity and therefore real embarrassment or does Eady's judgement get us off the hook?