Jason Beer QC appeared in the Divisional Court for the Metropolitan Police Service on 7th February 2012 when the Court approved the compromise of the claims for judicial review brought by Lord Prescott, Chris Bryant MP, Brian Paddick, Ben Jackson and HJK in relation to aspects of the MPS's investigation in 2006 of the interception of mobile telephone voicemail messages.　 The Claimants originally sought a declaration and damages, arguing that the MPS was in breach of three duties that were said to arise under Art.8 of the ECHR: (i) to take active steps to provide them individually with complete and accurate information concerning actual or potential invasions of their privacy by individuals acting on behalf of the News of the World; (ii) to provide them with an adequate response to requests for information about any such invasions of their privacy; and　 (iii) conduct an effective investigation into violations of their privacy.　 The latter duty was said to encompass an obligation to interview, and seize records from, journalists and to ascertain the extent of the telephone hacking operation conducted on behalf of the News of the World.　 The claims were compromised by an agreement that the Claimant would not proceed with their claims insofar as they related to duties (ii) and (iii) above; that the Claimants would not proceed with their claim for damages; and that instead of the declaration originally sought by the Claimants - which suggested that a duty was owed individually to all victims of phone hacking to inform them individually that their voicemail messages may have been hacked - the following declaration would be made:

"In breach of its duties under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in circumstances where the interference with the individuals’ right to respect for their private lives may have amounted to the commission of a criminal offence, the Defendant failed to take prompt, reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure that those identified as potential victims of voicemail interceptions were made aware of:

(a)　 The interference with their right to respect for private life that may have occurred;

(b)　 The possibility of continuing threats, where such threats had been identified;

(c)　 The steps they might take to protect their privacy; and

(d)　 The identity of those whom the police believed to be primarily responsible for the interception following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman.

Such steps should have included informing the public generally, by announcements in the media, through the mobile telephone companies, or otherwise (and should have included, where appropriate, individual notification)."

The Divisional Court (Gross LJ and Irwin J) agreed to make that declaration on 7th February 2012, whilst at the same time delivering a short judgment that it set no precedent for the future.