Tuesday 26 November 2013
Summary | ||
The Prosecution Case Continues | ||
Back at the Old Bailey | ||
Witness – Jo Manoukian | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Jo Manoukian | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Jo Manoukian | ||
Mr Justice Sauders: “Very modest.” | ||
Witness – Rafi Manoukian | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Rafi Manoukian | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Rafi Manoukian | ||
Witness Statement – Margaret Atkinson | ||
Prosecution Counsel Anthony Edis QC | ||
Witness – Dom Loehnis (friend of David Cameron) | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Dom Loehnis | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Dom Loehnis | ||
Further Prosecution question to Dom Loehnis | ||
Witness – Operation Weeting Detective DC Fletcher | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DC Fletcher | ||
Witness – Operation Weeting Detective DC Scott | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions DC Scott |
The Prosecution Case Continues | ||
Back at the Old Bailey | ||
Opening of #hackingtrial slightly delayed as another case is dealt with | ||
Witness – Jo Manoukian | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Jo Manoukian | ||
Back with #hackingtrial and witness Joe Manoukian, the host of the Brooks/Eimear Cook lunch discussed before the jury yesterday | ||
It’s Jo Manoukian not Joe | ||
Jo Manoukian is married to Rafi: she says the Brooks/Cook lunch party took place “around 2006” | ||
Jo Manoukian was told by Eimear that the police might get in contact. They did so in March 2012 #hackingtrial | ||
Jo Manoukian says she knew Eimear since the late 90s, but has had no contact since the phone call about police | ||
Jo Manoukian says she met Brooks around 2000, and then met maybe six times a year since then. | ||
Jo Manoukian says she last saw Brooks a few months before the police interviewed her | ||
Jo Manoukian says the lunch happened because Eimear Cook had been very unhappy due to negative press coverage of separation from Montgomerie | ||
Jo Manoukian thought it “would be helpful to Eimear” if they organised a meeting with Brooks #hackingtrial | ||
Jo Manoukian: “I only positively remember Eimear’s dissatisfaction with the bad press she was receiving… other than that not much detail” | ||
Jo Manoukian had met Rebekah Brooks only three days before the police interviewed her | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Jo Manoukian | ||
Jo Manoukian is now cross examined by Laidlaw, counsel for Brooks. He asks about precise date: Jo says “around 2006” | ||
Laidlaw refers to Jo Manoukian’s witness statement: “I believe the lunch took place in 2004 but can’t remember day or month” | ||
Jo Manoukian says she had no diary entry for this: “We had a lot of lunches or dinners.” | ||
Jo Manoukian confirms lunch took place in private and intimate part of the house, the family room, around a modest style table | ||
Mr Justice Sauders: “Very modest.” | ||
Saunders causes some hilarity in court in reference to Jo Manoukian’s eight seater dinner table “Very modest” | ||
Jo Manoukian confirms that Brooks and Eimear Cook were ‘strangers to each other’ at the time of the lunch | ||
Jo Manoukian witness statement: “I do not remember phone hacking being talked about… I’m not sure I knew in 2004 what phone hacking was.” | ||
Jo Manoukian said Eimear phoned to warn them the police would interview her and her husband over ‘phone hacking case’ | ||
Jo Manoukian says she’s never discussed the police case with Brooks. They’ve kept their distance on this topic | ||
Follow up from Edis from the Crown: “How much did Eimear tell you?” Jo Manoukian “Can’t remember if it was about hacking or lunch” | ||
Jo Manoukian on her contact with Brooks: “We’ve had telephone contact… on a personal level… to see how her child was.” | ||
Witness – Rafi Manoukian | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Rafi Manoukian | ||
Edis calls Rafi Manoukian as a witness in #hackingtrial | ||
Rafi Manoukian met Eimear in Brunei in early nineties when Colin Montgomerie played gold there | ||
Rafi Manoukian says he met Brooks around 1998/7 through friend Gary Farrow, PR Man: his wife Jane Moore used to work at the Sun | ||
Rafi Manoukian says he got to know Brooks ‘reasonably well’ – they sometimes holidayed together, or weekends abroad | ||
Rafi Manoukian says he was still friends with Brooks when police interviewed him | ||
Rafi Manoukian says lunch happened ‘five or six years ago…. probably instigated by Eimear Cook” She was in “a bit of state” about press | ||
Rafi Manoukian says his wife probably did the arrangements. The lunch probably last no more than two hours. | ||
Rafi Manoukian says “the one thing that stood out was how badly she was treated.” She felt press coverage was “one-sided” | ||
Rafi Manoukian can’t remember Eimear Cook making any requests of Brooks, or that Brooks volunteered any | ||
Rafi Manoukian cannot remember Brooks giving Cook any advice how to handle the press. No other topics of discussion stick in his mind | ||
Rafi Manoukian says he would occasionally had left the lunch a “couple of times” for the rest room, or to get his cigarrettes | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Rafi Manoukian | ||
Laidlaw, counsel for Brooks, cross examines Rafi Manoukian. Says “seven years” ago – i.e. 2006 – no diary to refer to | ||
“Mrs Brooks was doing a favour to us by giving Eimear advice on how to handle press,” Rafi Manoukian tells the jury | ||
Rafi Manoukian described Brooks in witness statement “more of a listener than a talker… and she was no different that day.” | ||
Rafi Manoukian says Eimear Cook was giving some intimate details of marriage, some of which surprised him. No recollection of hacking | ||
R Manoukian on phone hacking: absolutely no recollection of phone hacking conversation, but left the table a couple of times | ||
Rafi Manoukian says “I was not aware you could listen to voicemail messages prior to police interview” but was aware of scanning | ||
R Manoukian on whether Brooks and Cook would be left alone: “its highly unlikely they would have been left by themselves but not impossible” | ||
“It’s a big house, and it might have taken more time than you think” R Manoukian on going to get some cigarettes during the Brooks lunch | ||
Witness Statement – Margaret Atkinson | ||
Prosecution Counsel Anthony Edis QC | ||
Edis reads out the statement of Margaret Atkinson, friend of Eimear Cook’s mother, about appearing in Glenn Mulcaire’s notes | ||
Margaret Atkinson explains that she was looking after Eimear’s mother who was ill, and called Eimear on her mobile about it | ||
Margaret Atkinson confirms the pay as you go JustTalk phone in Mulcaire’s notes: but since never registered the address | ||
Witness – Dom Loehnis (friend of David Cameron) | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Dom Loehnis | ||
BREAKING: Prosecution calls Dom Loehnis about a party he attended on a Saturday night 2010 at Chequers for David Cameron’s 40th Birthday | ||
Loehnis was sat next to Rebekah Brooks at Cameron’s birthday party – he’d met her before. He remembers the conversation | ||
Loehnis asked Brooks whether “Coulson would survive press speculation at the time”: he was press secretary at the time | ||
BREAKING: Brooks told Cameron friend didn’t think Coulson could survive phone hacking scandal back in 2010 | ||
Loehnis: “Brooks said she didn’t think the story would go away…” She talked about PIN numbers “wasn’t a story that could be closed down” | ||
Loehnis: Brooks said that journalists had found about voicemail hacking “at the moment most people got mobile phones.. in late 90s” | ||
Loehnis says of Brooks and voicemail hacking “simply once people learned how to do it…. it may have been fairly frequent” | ||
“The impression I took was that…. once you discover you can do it, you do it because you can.” Loehnis on Brooks attitude to phone hacking | ||
Loehnis says Brooks didn’t tell him about the general attitude of journalists, right or wrong | ||
Loehnis on Brooks “She said there was one default code, and nobody changed it… and some people put that code in and discovered voicemails | ||
Dom Loehnis works in recruitment “helping companies find people” | ||
Loehnis says he wrote Brooks a letter on her resignation in 2011: the discovery of that letter led police to Loehnis | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Dom Loehnis | ||
Laidlaw for Brooks cross examines Loehnis: he has been shown an email between Loehnis and police about court dates | ||
Loehnis had been under the impression he might be a defence witness, but then called to clarify he was actually a prosecution witness | ||
Laidlaw goes over the 2010 conversation: Loehnis agrees he cannot recall the ‘exact words’ | ||
Loehnis said he didn’t place any particular significance on this conversation at the time, only Brooks’ resignation brought it back | ||
Laid goes through dates of Cameron Birthday Party: letter to Brooks 9 months on. 7 months on he is interviewed by police | ||
Loehnis was given no notice of police interview: they were waiting for him at his workplace | ||
Two officers were waiting for Loehnis: he made the witness statement the same day. | ||
Police were interested in paragraph of Loehnis’ letter to Brooks in July 11 hich made reference to conversation in October 2010 | ||
Loehnis worked briefly as a journalist in the early nineties. | ||
Loehnis was not aware phone hacking was the subject of publicity in the late 1990s | ||
Laidlaw says Brooks has no precise recollection of conversation of this private dinner at Chequers: part election celebration and birthday | ||
Brooks remembers about 60 people present at Cameron’s party: Dom Loehnis a very close friend of Cameron’s and had to make speech | ||
Laidlaw says speech “was very well received”: Loehnis says “thank you very much” Loehnis read out a poem at Cameron’s birthday | ||
Loehnis says there were six to eight tables, with partners sat separately, at Cameron’s Chequers Birthday | ||
Brooks says there wasn’t much conversation before Loehnis delivered his poem: Loehnis thinks the conversation was before then | ||
Loehnis remembers there was press publicity around the time of the extensive nature of phone hacking | ||
Coulson was at the time Cameron’s Director of Communications at the time, Laidlaw reminds the jury | ||
Brooks remembers that Loehnis was concerned, as a friend of Camerons “do you think this phone hacking is going to be a problem to Tories?” | ||
Loehnis remembers it was about Coulson: “Could he survive?” was the tenor of the conversation “in context of this story.” | ||
Laidlaw emphasises Coulson survival wasn’t about knowing about phone hacking. Loehnis says “Yes because of the publicity” | ||
Loehnis on Coulson: “The story wasn’t going to end… and while he was the story that make his position harder.” | ||
Loehnis cannot remember Brooks saying “it gives the opposition a stick to beat the Tories” | ||
Loehnis on Brooks’ concern over phone hacking: “Because it was unclear… how many people had done it, the story can’t be quickly closed.” | ||
Laidlaw reminds the jury that at this time Brooks was CEO of News International. | ||
Loehnis says the exchange lasted a couple of minutes, amongst a number of things they spoke about. He can’t remember the other topics | ||
Loehnis concedes Brooks didn’t hide her knowledge of phone hacking, but it was common knowledge at the time. She didn’t talk about NOTW | ||
Loehnis says Brooks seemed “relaxed about her own position” vis-a-vis phone hacking at Cameron Birthday Party in 2010 | ||
Loehnis says phone hacking was the only part of the conversation referred to the letter to Brooks in 2011 | ||
Further Prosecution question to Dom Loehnis | ||
“Phone hacking as a phenomenon became better known to me in middle of last decade,” Dom Loehnis to Andrew Edis QC as #hackingtrial | ||
Witness – Operation Weeting Detective DC Fletcher | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DC Fletcher | ||
DC Fletcher case officer for Brooks on count 1 is cross examined by Laidlaw, counsel for Brooks | ||
Fletcher explains her role in taking the witness statement from Eimear Cook. | ||
DC Fletcher also took the witness statement from the friend of the mother of Eimear Cook | ||
Fletcher also took the witness statement of Dom Loehnis – who has just appeared and with DS Massey did the interview | ||
Laidlaw goes through the contact log for Operation Weeting: DC Hickling did the initial sheet: DC Fletcher did the longer, later version | ||
Initial police interview with Eimear Cook was delayed when Mark Thompson took over her civil case | ||
DC Hickling, Fletcher, lawyer Mark Thompson and Eimear Cook’s new husband present at that first interview | ||
Fletcher confirms that in initial Cook statement “Rafi and Jo were present during the conversation” | ||
The Cook statement went through a couple of revisions | ||
After some argument whether Mulcaire note is actual evidence of hack, we break for lunch | ||
Another delay for legal arguments. Back to #hackingtrial soon | ||
Back with DC Fletcher, case officer for Brooks part of Operation Weeting case, being cross examined by Brooks’ counsel, Laidlaw | ||
Laidlaw and Fletcher discuss the Mulcaire notes on Eimear Cook after departure of Brooks. No resultant stories from 2004 Mulcaire notes | ||
DC Fletcher confirms there are no transcripts or recordings of Eimear Cook Mulcaire records | ||
Laidlaw goes through the police obligations in terms of investigating allegations of crime “to be of all times of an open mind” | ||
Laidlaw lays out the police duties to be “following the evidence and where that takes them” | ||
Laidlaw “any police officer who allows any agenda to take over… would have lost their way” DC Fletcher agrees | ||
Laidlaw says “it wouldn’t represent good policing to take a witnesses account with out testing it” DC Fletcher agrees | ||
DC Fletcher agrees that the police also have a duty to the prosecution to test the credibility of any witness | ||
Laidlaw: “coming as, you know doubt anticipated I wold do, I come to Mrs Eimear Cook… and the account she gave you….” | ||
Laidlaw asks; “Have you approached that task with an open mind?” DC Fletcher: “Yes I have.” | ||
Apologies Laidlaw brings up the McCartney Mills NOTW in its original form, not Montgomerie | ||
Slight delay for legal arguments. Back with Laidlaw and DC Fletcher and the Mills/McCartney article #hackingtrial | ||
Laidlaw questions DC Fletcher about the Mills/McCartney story and whether it was the result of illegal hacking – she couldn’t link it | ||
DC Fletcher explains how she contacted Annette Weatheridge author of the article: tasked to ask around in Miami Hotel | ||
DC Fletcher explains this is no call data to McCartney Mills in 2002 that proves phone hacking. | ||
DC Fletcher goes through emails of her contact with Annette Weatheridge over the McCartney Mills ‘ring throwing’ story in Aug 2012 | ||
Annette Weatheridge is a journalist based in US: she writes back to Weeting Officer “came from information from hotel staff” | ||
Weatheridge writes to police that the tip off came from a ‘phone in’ from someone working in the hotel, who had been hawking around story | ||
Weatheridge spoke to a security guard and people in the beauty salon of the Miami Hotel McCartney Mills were staying in. | ||
Weatheridge cannot remember the name of the original tipster or his wife, who worked in the Hotel beauty salon. | ||
Weatheridge wasn’t interviewed by the police because she lived in New York. | ||
Weatheridge sent Laidlaw the email: it was not part of prosecution disclosure | ||
Fletcher explains the McCartney/Mills was added to timeline because it formed part of the Eimear Cook timeline. Second article also added | ||
DC Fletcher explains there is payment record for Ms Weatheridge for expenses on that story | ||
Laidlaw produces a document from police records – a contributors payment request. 16/06/02 £750 for story ‘Feud of the Rings’ | ||
DC Fletcher says she put the Macca ring story in to corroborate Cook’s recollection of the lunch with Brooks | ||
DC Fletcher says she did not raise again any McCartney/Mills hack with Eimear Cook | ||
Laidlaw counsel for Brooks asks DC Fletcher if she remembers the Kate Moss incident of losing Chanel contract. | ||
DC Fletcher says she’s satisfied at the date of the Brooks/Cook lunch from Kate Moss story and Brooks’ diary date | ||
Laidlaw asks about how the Dom Loehnis letter came to be in their possession. It was through solicitors Kingsley Napier. They seized letter | ||
The letter was provided to Kingsley Napier by Brooks. Edis follows up it was after the 7 boxes of evidence had been removed by Cheryl Carter | ||
Kingsley Napier said they had a number of boxes in their possession from various locations: Fletcher says there were 7 boxes and a sack | ||
DC Fletcher explains there was no call data over Mulcaire in 2002 because in those days phone companies only kept for a year | ||
Witness – Operation Weeting Detective DC Scott | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions DC Scott | ||
Back with Bryant Heron going through the jury bundle 2 evidence on Andy Coulson. DC Scott is called as case officer and witness | ||
Bryant Heron takes DC Scott back to Coulson/Goodman tape: it came from a cassette seized on 08/07/11 seized from Goodman’s house | ||
Jury shown email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 16/09/06 “Here’s what Rebekah told me about the info relayed to her by cops” | ||
Crone to Coulson email: 1/Confident have Clive and GM bang to rights 2/ From GM “a list of 100-110 victims 3/ £1 million payments | ||
BREAKING: Crone email to Coulson says Brooks knew over 100 victims of phone hacking in 2006 | ||
Crone email to Coulson about Brooks conversation with police: “they do have Glenn Mulcaire’s phone records sequences of calls with NOTW” | ||
Crone email tells Coulson police are going to contact Brooks later that day to “see if they are going to take it further” | ||
Coulson to Crone 06/11/06 about legal document: Crone emails Henry Brandman, Goodman’s solicitor asking to see prosecution papers | ||
Coulson emails Tom Crone 02/12/06 “Probation service have anti NOTW agenda. Crone forwards to Goodman’s solicitor Brandman “for info” | ||
Jury shown three page exhibit NOTW budget 2005-6: Kuttner’s note of a meeting with Coulson, on ‘potential savings’ | ||
Point 14 of Budget plan: “cut 50% of Nine Consultancy current £105,000 via Greg” | ||
Kuttner’s notes on meetings with Coulson from a letter has several crossings out: including the Nine Consultancy savings of £70k | ||
There are a couple of additions to this revised Kuttner/Coulson budget meetings, document dated 15th May 2005 | ||
Email from Coulson to NOTW staff on 2005 awards “far too many stories fall into the ‘fine’ category… we need a hit. Badly” | ||
Coulson email from April 16th 2005 says “Sat nights I will now expect every dept head and senior member of staff… to be in my office” | ||
Coulson email to staff: “We broke Beckham in april, Sven in July and Blunkett in August” expects more of the same | ||
Jan 18th 2006 Coulson writes to desk eds looking for “big hits this year” talking of an away day going into evening | ||
Email from Coulson to Wallis 01/12/06 “Can we find out where peirce got horribly accurate info” in Telegraph piece the day before | ||
The Telegraph piece was about the guilty pleas of Mulcaire and Goodman: names ten victims but goes into his £50k budget, and payoff | ||
Correction: “Goodman’s budget had been increased by £500 a week after he told management that he needed money to look after unnamed contact” | ||
The last quotation came from Telegraph piece came from 30/11/06 the day after Goodman and Mulcaire pleaded guilty in court | ||
Jury shown another budget plan for year to 2007 08/03/06 “reduce Nine Consultancy to 76k saving £28k” | ||
Another document has the same Nine Consultancy as second entry on News section: this copy from the archives: the previous from MSC | ||
Version 2 of the same document show ‘Nine Consultancy’ cut as the first item under News section budget reduction | ||
On version three of 06/07 NOTW budget documents ‘Nine Consultancy’ is still the first item for potential cuts in News section | ||
A doc the jury has seen before: email from Stenson to Coulson about Charles Clarke affair ‘tip off’ is cited by Bryant Heron | ||
A doc from Paddy Harverson timeline, seen before is shown: Goodman says health info SCANNED (not scammed as reported elsewhere) | ||
Jury not required tomorrow morning: so back tomorrow at 2pm | ||
I can report: Tracey Bell, a pharmacist at Sandhurst, was given six month suspended sentence this morning, for misconduct in office | ||
Tracey Bell had pleaded guilty to selling stories to a journalist about Prince William and Harry at Sandhurst |
Note: All the defendants deny all the charges. The trial continues.
Related Articles
Tom Crone’s email to Andy Coulson: Andy Coulson’s emails to NOTW Staff
Transcript of Goodman’s call to Coulson after being charged with Phone Hacking in 2006
Wolff: Happiness comes to Rupert Murdoch
Charlie Brooks Will Lewis email exchange: Chris Bryant MP “making stuff up”
Mulcaire’s Last Contract and Edmondson’s Dismissal
Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 20 Nov
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 21 Nov
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 25 Nov
Links: The Trial So Far | Full Trial Summary | Indexed Evidence | Breaking News
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 27 Nov | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 28 Nov | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 5 Dec | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 9 Dec | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 10 Dec | Live Tweeting the hacking trial