NightJack blogger to sue the Times for damages James Harding (pictured) has apologised to Mr Justice Eady, who turned down an anonymity injunction sought by Horton. The Lancashire detective exposed by the Times for writing an anonymous blog about crime issues is to sue the newspaper for damages after it emerged that a reporter initially identified him by hacking into his emails. The decision by Richard Horton, who blogged under the name NightJack, to pursue a claim comes as the Metropolitan police continue their investigation into email hacking by journalists. Horton is understood to have instructed his lawyer to claim damages from the newspaper. In evidence to the Leveson inquiry this week, the editor of the Times, James Harding, admitted that evidence of his paper's involvement in email hacking had previously been withheld from the high court. Harding apologised to Mr Justice Eady, who turned down an anonymity injunction sought in 2009 by Horton. Harding claimed he had not known of the circumstances that led to NightJack's exposure It emerged that a young Times reporter, Patrick Foster, had hacked into an email account to identify and expose the award-winning police blogger. The inquiry heard that he claimed to have obtained the same information from "purely publicly accessible information." Foster, who later left the paper, has since written freelance contributions for the Guardian and the Telegraph. The Metropolitan police are understood to be investigating allegations of email hacking by the Times as part of the fallout from the NightJack case. The Labour MP Tom Watson has written to the force raising his concerns. A police spokesperson said: "Officers from Operation Tuleta [the unit investigating email hacking] are in contact with Mr Watson in relation to specific issues he wishes to raise. We are not prepared to give a running commentary on the investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service said any question of investigations arising from evidence at the Leveson inquiry would be a matter for the police. News International, the owner of the Times, said it did not wish to make any further statement in response to suggestions that the high court might have been misled. A spokesperson referred to statements made by Harding to Leveson. Asked whether at any stage "anybody suggested to you that these matters ought to be brought to the attention of Mr Justice Eady?," Harding replied: "No. As I said, our statement, Mr [Alistair] Brett, the then legal manager, as I understand it, did not believe and still does not believe that the court was misled. When I read these documents, when I went through them, I felt that information had not been disclosed to the judge and I felt that it was right that he should get an apology and I have written to him to apologise. The newspaper has declined to release the text of the letter to Eady. Brett, who fought the case overturning the injunction application, made no comment. No application to reopen the case has been received by the attorney general's office. The Judicial Communications Office said Eady declined to comment on the developments.