This article is more than 7 years old

This article is more than 7 years old

The manager of singer and TV celebrity Tulisa Contostavlos has written to the chairman of the culture and media select committee to complain about a Sun on Sunday sting operation on his client.

Jonathan Shalit's letter to Tory MP John Whittingdale expresses his "grave concern" about the article published on 2 June and the journalistic methods used to obtain it, arguing that it amounted to entrapment.

The front page story, headlined "Tulisa's cocaine deal shame", was billed as a "world exclusive" and written by the former News of the World investigations editor, Mazher Mahmood.

The Sun on Sunday, 2 June

It stated that Tulisa had been "sensationally exposed as a drug fixer who set up an £800 cocaine deal" and claimed she arranged for a friend to supply "half an ounce of the class A drug."

Two days after the article appeared Tulisa attended a London police station by arrangement, was arrested and made a formal statement, which Shalit quotes in his letter. It said:

"I was approached by what I now know to be three journalists from The Sun who pretended to be producing a film… We all met on a number of occasions over a few week.s During these meetings alcohol was freely available. During this time the journalists also sent texts and spoke to me on the phone. The journalists persuaded me that they wanted me to play the lead role in a major film for which I was to be paid a large amount of money. They described the lead character as being similar to me as portrayed in the media and in my book. At that time I was trying to find a role in a film and so was keen to be offered the part. During our meetings the journalists asked me a number of intimate questions about my private life. I answered these, sometimes in an exaggerated manner, in an attempt to persuade them of my suitability for the part. The impression given by reports in The Sun newspaper is unfair an mislaying, and my words have often been taken out of context. I am not a drug dealer. I did not initiative the supply of drugs to The Sun journalists and had no intention of being concerned in their supply."

Shalit goes on to contend: "It is plain that the undercover journalists set out to entrap her. This was not an attempt to expose pre-existing criminality; rather there was an extensive, sustained and deliberate campaign to lute her into committing an offence."

Shalit alleges that the journalists, while posing as film producers, "flew Tulisa and two friends first class from Los Angeles to Las Vegas", hosted them in "five-star hotel suites", supplied "large amounts of alcohol" at meetings, and "frequently asked Tulisa about drugs."

Over the course of several weeks, Shalit claims to Whittingdale, "the journalists gave the impression that they were regular users of cocaine and sought to induce Tulisa to share cocaine with them."

He refers to these activities as "elaborate, repeated, concerted attempts to artificially create crime in order that they could then 'expose' it."

Shalit accuses the paper of being commercially motivated, rather than "some altruistic desire to being criminality to justice."

He further alleges that The Sun has failed to provide "all the relevant evidence in its possession to the police."

In his conclusion, Shalit mentions the Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry and report:

"Following on from Leveson, it seems time to draw the line as to what are acceptable and unacceptable journalistic practices. There have of course been legitimate times when journalists have unearthed crimes that otherwise would not have been prosecuted, which I also applaud… However, this is very different to the entrapment of a 24-year-old pop singer/TV judge on the basis of an ill-informed tip-off with no real proof [which] clearly crosses all boundaries of acceptability."

A spokeswoman for the culture and media select committee had not responded to an inquiry at the time of writing.

A Sun spokesperson said: "The Sun's investigation into Tulisa Contostavlos is entirely justified in the public interest. We have handed our dossier of evidence to the police and there is a live investigation ongoing.

"We observed the PCC code throughout the investigation and only used subterfuge because there was no other means of securing proof."

I have written twice previously about this matter. See here and here.