Michael Gillard, a veteran journalist who closely followed the trial, claimed in his blog that the claimants had been desperately trying to avoid the costly trial last December.
They turned to James Hanning, a former journalist and deputy editor of The Independent on Sunday, in the hope to open settlement talks.
Mr Hanning confirmed that he had been instructed, with the knowledge of the claimants and their legal team, to contact Stephen Wright, a former associate editor of the Daily Mail. He did so via a former senior detective known to them both.
“I acted as a backchannel,” Mr Hanning told Gillard, explaining that it had been felt that a “sideways” approach to a settlement could prove successful.
The offer was a suggestion to “talk sensibly”, he said, adding: “Any specific headings that were mentioned would have been ‘for discussion’. There was no suggestion of there being a ‘take it or leave it’ offer from the claimants.
“I was not in a position to judge how good/bad the offer to talk was likely to be, but I do believe it was put forward as a sincere way of reaching an agreement.”
Discussions were said to have become “particularly heated” on Christmas Eve, but Associated, with its reputation on the line, refused to back down.
A second informal attempt to settle also failed, which was said to have been made using a former News of The World journalist who had worked alongside Graham Johnson, a convicted phone hacker and member of the claimants’ legal research team.
Having lost the case, the seven claimants are jointly liable for any costs issued against them. They had been warned about the potential financial “consequences” as the legal costs mounted.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.telegraph.co.uk ’
