Thursday 5 December 2013
Summary | ||
The Prosecution Case continues | ||
Back at the Old Bailey | ||
Prosecution Presents Evidence on Counts 4 and 5 – Misconduct | ||
Agreed Facts on Counts 4 and 5 | ||
Giving evidence – Operation Elveden Detective DC Tilbury | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DC Tilbury | ||
Witness – Paddy Harverson (former Communications Secretary to Prince Charles) | ||
Prosecution Counsel question Paddy Harverson | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Paddy Harverson | ||
Witness – Operation Elveden Detective Inspector Kennett | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions DI Kennett | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DI Kennett | ||
Recalled Witness – Operation Elveden Detective DC Tilbury | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DC Tilbury | ||
Lunch break | ||
Witness – Major Julia Parke-Robinson (Royal Military College Sandhurst) | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Major Parke-Robinson | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Major Parke-Robinson | ||
Witness – Operation Elveden Detective DC Briddon | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions DC Briddon | ||
Witness – Belinda Vern (Head of Army Secretariat) | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Belinda Vern | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Belinda Vern |
The Prosecution Case continues | ||
Back at the Old Bailey | ||
Heading back to #Hackingtrial at the Old Bailey after 6 days. Dare I say? I kind of missed it. This is what they mean by #stockholmsyndrome | ||
If you want to catch up any of the last five weeks of the #hackingtrial – all my live tweets stored and indexed http://www.fothom.wordpresss.com | ||
At the #hackingtrial Justice Saunders welcomes the jury back after a long break | ||
Prosecution Presents Evidence on Counts 4 and 5 – Misconduct | ||
Counsel for the prosecution, Rebecca Chalkley, is now going to counts 4 and 5 of their case against Rebekah Brooks #hackingtrial | ||
Chalked explains count 4 “conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office’: Brooks conspired with Sun journalists and MOD employees | ||
Count 5 – another misconduct charge against Brooks with Sun employees and a public official | ||
Rebecca Chalkley takes the jury through the ‘admissions’ or ‘agreed facts’ of the case. | ||
Agreed Facts on Counts 4 and 5 | ||
Admission: Brooks became editor Sun Jan 2003. Sun made payments directly or indirectly. News International declare to tax authorities | ||
Further admissions: a Sun journalist received information from an employee at Sandhurst. A story about William in a bikini party cited | ||
Admissions: payments were made to husband and wife working at Sandhurst. | ||
Admissions; another public official received £100k for stories provided to the Sun. | ||
Admissions from both sides – the payments to this public official are agreed and accurate. | ||
Giving evidence – Operation Elveden Detective DC Tilbury | ||
Prosecution calls DC Tilbury as their first witness in counts 4 and 5. | ||
DC Tilbury was the case officer for Count 4 of this indictment against Brooks | ||
Chalkley explains to the jury the index of their ‘bundle’ for these particular charges | ||
The first document shown to jury: email 18/04/06 to Brooks subject ‘Cash payment authorisation’ for £1k for someone working at Sandhurst | ||
Second email 15/06/06 from Sun employee about a contact offering picture from Sandhurst with William dressed as ‘bond girl’ for £4k | ||
Sun employee about picture source: “I already have him over a barrel because I know his identity… he needs picture for a course for wife” | ||
Email is passed onto Brooks “What do you think boss?” Brooks responds ten minutes later; “OK” | ||
Jury now shown Thomas Cook payment requests from Sun – validated by Sun employee, and identifying wife of Sandhurst employee 16/06/06 | ||
Payment description to Sandhurst employee for £4k describes Prince William wearing bikini, and the department is Sun News | ||
The jury is shown the relevant article | ||
The article goes into detail William and Kate Middleton at a Sandhurst themed party | ||
Jury is shown a schedule of payments made to husband and wife at MOD for a variety of stories | ||
The payment schedule tallies with the arrival of the stories in the Sun, and identifies Sun journalist and contributor | ||
A third payment 13/10/06 fro £500 via BACS rather than Thomas Cook to MOD employees | ||
MOD employee from May 06 paid £1k via Thomas Cook with related story alleging MOD employee killed a policeman | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DC Tilbury | ||
Laidlaw counsel for Brooks cross-examines the police witness over Count 4 on the bikini photograph, with relevant email | ||
15/06/06 Laidlaw says this the only occasion on Count 4 Brooks is asked to approve a payment. He goes to the email in some detail | ||
Laidlaw goes through the number of people involved in Brooks related email, and the police investigations into them | ||
The email of 15/06/06 is written by a Sun journalist who cannot be named for legal reasons, to another Sun journalist | ||
DC Tilbury says “all I’ve done is investigate this email” – he hasn’t investigated the relationship between different Sun employees | ||
Laidlaw dissects the email: “Here is the situation. My best contact at Sandhurst…” DC Tilbury explains who he is and had gone to Australia | ||
Sun source: “has supplied a string of great stuff over a period months is offering us a picture of Prince William at Bond themed party” | ||
The Sandhurst contact was posted in Australia at the time. “The picture in question belongs to fellow [MOD employee|” | ||
“He is very concerned about the notion of the picture ending up in the Sun” says Sun journalist about Prince William picture in June 2006 | ||
DC Tilbury says inquiries are still ‘ongoing’ about who the person offering the picture – another military official | ||
Inspector Kennett is conducting further inquiries about the email, with assistant DC Bland. These inquiries are ‘live’, Laidlaw establishes | ||
DC Tilbury explains they are still exploring call data from Australia related to this MOD employee when he was based there | ||
Tilbury says they are still waiting for the information from Australian service providers | ||
Laidlaw to DC Tilbury: “I don’t want to be unfairly critical of you…. but you are not confident of identity of [MOD employee] are you?” | ||
Break while Inspector Kennett is looked for | ||
Back after break at #hackingtrial: prosecution will call another witness before Inspector Kennett gives evidence. | ||
Witness – Paddy Harverson (former Communications Secretary to Prince Charles) | ||
Prosecution Counsel question Paddy Harverson | ||
Prosecution call Paddy Harverson former communications secretary to Prince Charles and his son, re his relationship with the Sun | ||
In mid August 2006 Harverson called Brooks about photo in the Sun. He made notes of those conversation | ||
Harverson can’t remember who called who, but conversation with Brooks was 15/16th August 2006. He was ‘testing an issue’ around Prince Harry | ||
Harverson: “in course of conversation about Prince Harry….” Brooks talked about “a photo of Prince William in a bikini with feather boa” | ||
Harverson said to Brooks “photo taken during private occasion shouldn’t be published… a breach of his privacy”. Brooks said it wouldn’t be | ||
Royal Aide Paddy Harverson spoke to Partrick Harrison, press secretary at Clarence House, who had been in conversation with Sun | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Paddy Harverson | ||
Laidlaw for Brooks cross examines Harverson over photo “This is not that straightforward… particularly at this distance in time.” | ||
Laidlaw calls up Harverson’ contemporanous handwritten notes on the conversation. RW: “My guys say they did deal on Friaday. Guys have negs” | ||
This notes relate to a story about Prince Harry “Dirty Harry: Playboy Prince Cops a feel. RW note “If we fucked up, what are willing to say” | ||
Laidlaw goes through the Sun Front Page story alleging Prince Harry had been canoodling with a woman he wasn’t going out with | ||
The Sun article from 15/08/06 claims pics of Royal princes were taken at Bougies nightclub, and was a ‘recent story ‘ | ||
Harverson was concerned the pictures were taken some years earlier at another nightclub, and woman involved, Ms Pinkham, was family friend | ||
Harverson notes Brooks says of picture sources: “They claimed they were his pictures and we knew him” | ||
Harverson notes Brooks said the Sun “fucked up” – they were not recent photos, and Prince Harry hadn’t cheated on his girlfriend | ||
Harverson knows nothing of Brooks demoting journalist involved. He vaguely recalls the apology the Sun printed on 16/08/06 on page 6 | ||
The Sun makes a short apology for front page about Harry splash on page 6, second item on column one. | ||
Until the conversation with Harverson, Brooks was intended to do another story on the Royal Princes the next day | ||
Harverson continues with notes; “PW pics due to go tomorrow” – Brooks was intending to run story from “well known source… “ | ||
Harverson explains the reference to “Front Page OK?” was about where they would put apology. | ||
Harverson reads Brooks promises to change pics on website. “Remove Part 2…. Prince William in feather boa” | ||
Harverson says he’d never heard of the Prince William feather boa picture until Brooks told him | ||
Next page of Harverson’s handwritten notes of his conversation with Brooks: Prince William in underwear with a pink feather boa | ||
Laidlaw says the People in 2011 published the picture of William in underwear with two boas. Sun only published a mock up | ||
Harverson says he can’t be sure that was the photograph Brooks was talking about. The People references a ‘stag do’ – Brooks didn’t | ||
Harverson says the mock-up the Sun eventually ran was William in a bikini “must be two different occasions” | ||
Harverson says Brooks didn’t mention a party at Sandhurst in that conversation. | ||
Laidlaw takes Harverson through his written statement: he called her to complain about the Prince Harry photo in august. | ||
Harverson: “My recollection was that Brooks told me the Sun had a photo… my impression taken some years before.” | ||
Harverson “can’t remember whether the photo was months old or years” though his written statement says “years” | ||
CORRECTION thanks to @NicoHines – Prince Harry story which Brooks says Sun “fucked up” was at BOUJIS not BOUGIES | ||
Witness – Operation Elveden Detective Inspector Kennett | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions DI Kennett | ||
Prosecution calls Detective Inspector Kennett as a witness on the Count 4 and 5 corruption charges against Brooks | ||
DI Kennett is attached to Operation Elveden, investigation in payments into public officials. | ||
Kennett explains how DC Tilbury was a case officer who did every day kinds of inquiries | ||
Kennett is asked by Edis, for the Crown, about the source of the photo of William in bikini. | ||
Edis asks about the inquiries into two potential sources of the photo: the inquiries are not complete. | ||
Justice Saunders asks Laidlaw to ‘think carefully’ about whether he needs to know the names of two suspects | ||
Laidlaw for Brooks cross examines Kennett on the individuals mentioned in email about the bikini picture: “how many do the police believe” | ||
Laidlaw points out his client was arrest in July 2011 on Operation Elveden charges. “That is now what 28 or 29 months ago?” | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DI Kennett | ||
Laidlaw asks about the resources dedicated to Elveden: Kennett says 60 police officers over 80 to 90 lines of inquiry | ||
Kennett says the number of officers on Elveden were initially small “but grew as the line of inquiries grew” | ||
DI Kennett explains that DC Tilbury didn’t know all because “of particular sensitivities of this particular subject” – Royal Family | ||
DI Kennett identifies a Sandhurst source for the jury – cannot be named for legal reasons | ||
Laidlaw focuses on email “the picture in question belongs to a fellow [Sandhurst employee]…” Tilbury had identified a potential name | ||
Kennett subsequently established that there was another senior officer at the time of the party, but different to time of email | ||
Laidlaw names the other potential source of the story as the ‘first’ senior officer commanding Prince William. | ||
Kennett agrees the name of Sandhurst source, it belongs to commanding officer, but Laidlaw alights on “the chap who has picture” | ||
Laidlaw asks if police have investigated whether the person who the photo belonged and the ‘chap who had the picture’ were different | ||
Laidlaw asks about the “thinking of the police” and “whether or not there are three individuals involved here” | ||
Kennett says they “keep an open mind” but the “clear inference” is that the person who the picture “belonged to” was same as who had it | ||
Kennett says the “the inquiries are still ongoing” but agrees “thus far” there are two not three people being spoken of in the email | ||
“My man is convinced that as a result of doing the deal with us it will open the prospect of future exclusives” Sun Journo on William pic | ||
“Indeed I already have the guy with the picture over a barrel because I already know his identity” Sun Journo on source owning royal pic | ||
“The chap is only happy for us to use the picture once Sandhurst is on a break… but needs cash by Saturday….” Sun journo email | ||
DI Kennett agrees the email suggest the source needs the cash for the Sun for a course for his wife. | ||
Five minute break | ||
Laidlaw resumes with cross examination of DI Kennett about the work that was line of inquiries over Prince William‘s commanding officers | ||
Kennett explains how commanders at Sandhurst change over the terms. | ||
A witness statement from the widow of former commanding officer was obtained in March 2013 – very sensitive. Laidlaw: “He died a hero” | ||
Widow of senior went to Royal Wedding, but Kennett cannot say her husband was “was extremely” close to Prince William | ||
Kennett says his investigations have excluded the possibility it was this commanding officer. His wife heavily pregnant at time of email | ||
Kennett agree this “rules out” Prince William‘s former commanding officer, who died in Afghanistan, as source of photo. | ||
DI Kennett says investigations into the second potential source of pic are hampered because he’s outside of the UK and still serving officer | ||
DI Kennett says “for various reasons” it hasn’t been possible to interview second potential source of the Prince William Bikini pic | ||
Laidlaw goes back to possibility of a “third individual”: person No 2 is “very concerned about the idea of snap ending up in Sun” | ||
Edis re-examines DI Kennett on second potential source: “He will be interviewed. Am I justified in arresting him? Probably not.” | ||
Edis asks Kennett if he can caution suspect on phone: “I’ve never heard of anyone doing that on a phone…. I’ve liased with Army…” | ||
Kennett: “But what the army won”t do is post someone back into jeopard….. where he can be arrested. “ | ||
Kennett on the possibility of a ‘third man’ in William pic. Brooks didn’t mention it: “this is the first time this concept has arisen” | ||
Recalled Witness – Operation Elveden Detective DC Tilbury | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines DC Tilbury | ||
DC Tilbury is recalled to discuss the details of the money schedule on Count 4 of corruption indictment against Rebekah Brooks | ||
Laidlaw focuses on payment for £4k 27/06/06 for Prince William picture. “Was there anything unusual about this?” | ||
Laidlaw asks if there’s any other occasion when the payment for MOD source comes before the article was published. DC Tilbury says ‘no’ | ||
DC Tilbury was the payment details given by MSC. Payment before publication “because the email requested it” | ||
DC Tilbury explains this was the only occasion wife collected payment in cash (“her husband was away in Australia”) | ||
DC Tilbury confirms that no cash sum for £4k was paid into wife’s account. “£500 credited to account after £4k taken out.” | ||
A second cash payment was made to MOD official’s wife – but additional £500 paid in cash to bank account | ||
DC Tilbury confirms that the police have not seen the “Will’s in Bikini photograph” | ||
Laidlaw corrects previous statement. This wasn’t the only Brooks contact: 18/04/06 £1k request from this MOD source but no approval | ||
Email produced by defence from 21/04/06 has another request for this £1k payment but it’s not addressed to Brooks | ||
DC Tilbury is conducting a financial review of MOD officials accounts to see if they made payments to others. | ||
Lunch break | ||
8 Lessons From the Murdoch Phone Hacking Trial http://thebea.st/1bhSYsl via @thedailybeast | ||
Saunders reminds the jury at #hackingtrial that Clive Goodman pleaded guilty to phone hacking in 2006. | ||
Langdale for Coulson explains he is not present because he’s in conference with legal team | ||
Chalkley shows jury the statement of the press statement from Patrick Harrison about a call from Sun journalist “at Rebekah Wade’s request” | ||
Harrison: “he claimed photos he had photos of…. Prince William in a bikini top.” Harrison made usual statement about private events | ||
Witness – Major Julia Parke-Robinson (Royal Military College Sandhurst) | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Major Parke-Robinson | ||
The prosecution call Major Julia Parke-Robinson from RMC, serving officer for 15 years. In August she was platoon commander at Sandhurst | ||
Sandhurst is divided into three colleges. Witness moved to old college in 2006 | ||
Parke-Robinson explains how each company is split into three platoons. She was commanding number 11 platoon, sharing office with two others | ||
Alex McCay platoon commander 12 platoon. David Brooks 10 platoon. While Willima was at Sandhurst they were briefed about ‘H Wales’ | ||
At end of each term Parke-Robinson explains there were both platoon and company parties – used as a “leadership tool for management skills” | ||
In April 2006 the theme for the party was James Bond, cadets and staff were allowed to bring guests. William accompanied by Kate Middleton | ||
Parke-Robinson: William and a number of his friends were dressed as Bond girls. He wore a green bikini. Can’t remember what Kate wore | ||
Cadets were allowed to take photos of party according to Parke-Robinson | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Major Parke-Robinson | ||
Laidlaw cross examines Parke-Robinson: she was certain photos were taken of the Bond party. | ||
Laidlaw points out that cadets are in late teens and early 20s, with phones to take pictures. | ||
Cadets are allowed to drink on social occasions but party on Sandhurst grounds. Company parties about 150 people, cadets plus guests | ||
Parke-Robinson says in 2006 social media wasn’t as prevalent – but they don’t have access to internet during training. | ||
Chalkley for the prosecution moves on to count 5 of the misconduct corruption of public official indictment against Brooks | ||
Chalkey reads the witness statement of Mark Rowlands, head of corporate foreign exchange at Thomas Cooke. NI one of their clients | ||
Rowland’s witness statement explains how NI would order currency through fax or email, signed by someone at NI | ||
Mark Rowland’s from Thomas Cooke explains that official ID was needed to collect cash payments, and ID should have been recorded | ||
Witness – Operation Elveden Detective DC Briddon | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions DC Briddon | ||
Prosecution call DC Jim Brinnan (sp?) from Operation Elveden to answer questions on count five against Brooks | ||
Elveden DC Briddon is shown an exclusive Sun article from 2006 about a Sandhurst instructor | ||
Another Sun story from 2006 has another army related story by Tom Newton Dunn about the death of a female soldier | ||
Another story from 2006 has a Sun exclusive about an injury during army training | ||
Email from Sun journalist about those stories to Brooks: “Please approve following payments for No 1 military contacts through T Cooke” | ||
Brooks replies “Of course” Chalkley says “these are the three stories we’ve just seen in the papers” Then shows T Cooke payment slip | ||
Payment slip to source shows date, cash payment, form of ID: a story named and sum of £1000 attached. Cost centres, exec authorisation | ||
Internal payment request shows that tax has been paid separately by Sun because of anonymous contributor. | ||
Same date as previous email, another anonymous cash payment to be collected in Camberley by Bettina Jordan-Barber | ||
A sum of £3000 attached to another named story in the Sun. | ||
DC Briddon explains an internal confirmation memo from News International to Thomas Cooke that payment has been made: £.4.5k for 3 stories | ||
The memo names Bettina Jordan-Barber in Camberley as recipient. | ||
The jury is shown another exclusive Sun story from Aug 2007 which tells of engagement of army cadet (featured in several other stories) | ||
A Sun front page exclusive from October 2007 details the death of a Sandhurst instructor | ||
The front page is bylined to a Sun journalist, with additional reporters | ||
Email from Sun journals to Brooks about “belting exclusive splash” (seen just before) asking for £3k for first story, £1k for second | ||
Brooks responds a few hours later: “Brilliant scoop…. of course on payments” Sun journo responds: “Many thanks boss” | ||
The jury sees another Thomas Cooke payment request to be collected by Jordan-Barber. £1k for one story. | ||
Another NI memo from that October shows money collected by Jordan-Barber | ||
Chalkley shows jury a Sun story about Prince William attending funeral of slain soldier, and a Nov 07 exclusive about an army resignation | ||
A third Sun exclusive from Nov 07 about an army major appearing on swingers website. | ||
An email from Sun journalist from Nov 07 to Brooks: “Could you please approve TC payments for three exclusives for ace military contact” | ||
The email to Brooks describes the three stories just shown and ask for approval for £2k. | ||
The Sun journalist then emails another editor to process the “dosh” | ||
A Thomas Cooke fax form tallies with date of previous email with cash only payment to Jordan-Barber naming one of the articles | ||
Late November 2007 another Thomas Cooke authorisation to Jordan-Barber for Sun story about resignation and payment for £2k | ||
Third Thomas Cooke payment for £500 for third Sun story: CORRECTION total was £3K | ||
An internal NI memo tallies up the three stories and three payments for £3k | ||
Jury shown another Sun exclusive from April 2008 about a sexual scandal at army barracks | ||
Chalkley for prosecution shows another Sun exclusive about a Captain having laptop nicked. | ||
An email from Sun journalist to Brooks naming stories and asking for approval for £3 payments to “ace military contact…cheap at the price” | ||
As with previous schedule, Thomas Cooke and NI memos confirm payments to Jordan-Barber for two stories concerned | ||
Jury shown another exclusive Sun army story from May 08 about a traumatised corporal facing disciplinary action at army barracks | ||
May 2008 another Sun exclusive about an army disciplinary action over a live grenade incident at a barracks | ||
Third Sun exclusive from May 08 involving a domestic incident with a Sandhurst soldier. | ||
June 08 Sun journalist emails Brooks about “three strong stories” just seen for “£3k…. cheap at the price” Brooks replies 11th June “yes” | ||
More Thomas Cooke and NI memos and a fax cite three stories and collection by Jordan-Barber. | ||
Sun Front Page exclusive Aug 08 about drug testing in the navy. Another exclusive from Oct 08 about sexual assault. Nov 08 another exclusive | ||
Email from Sun Journo in Oct 08 to Brooks: “My dear boss… could you please approve following payments…. Good value for money” | ||
Sun journo details “ace military contact” and describes the page one exclusive, and the other two stories from Oct/Nov 2008 for £3k | ||
Sun journo also details prison source about Al Qaeda suspect training to be stand up comic – negotiating down to £3k. Brooks “Fine, thanks” | ||
Those three stories also have Thomas Cooke authorisations | ||
Nov 2008 Sun exclusive about a female officer losing limb in Afghanistan. Front page exclusive Feb 09 about colonel “leaking secrets” | ||
Email from Sun journo to Brooks in Feb 09; “Could you please kindly approve payments for no 1 military contact… via Thomas Cooke” | ||
Brooks replies to Sun journo a couple of minutes later “yes”: memos and faxes confirm payment of amounts and stories | ||
March 2009 Sun exclusive about a baby hidden in barracks. Another in March about an army colonel having an affair, cross references previous | ||
March 2009 another Sun exclusive about a cadet allegedly having affair with colour sergeant | ||
Saunders apologises “for waking everyone up” as he queries missing page | ||
The payments for those stories are all detailed in subsequent NI memos | ||
March 2009 another Sun exclusive about false expense claims by soliders. | ||
March 2009 email from Sun Journo to Brooks asking approval for £3k “no 1 military contact” through TCooke. Brooks replies 2 mins later yes | ||
Brooks approval forwarded on to another NI employee confirming authorisation, employee emails but adds “please delete this email after” | ||
BREAKING: payments to Bettina Jordan-Barber from Sun employee “please delete this email after” | ||
Sun May 09 two Sun exclusives about officer faking medals. Email to Brooks that month about “massive exclusive” from “No 1 military contact” | ||
Brooks replies to Sun journalist that morning “Thanks” | ||
Memos again confirm stories and payments through Thomas Cooke for those stories. | ||
A Sun Front Page Exclusive from June 2009 about an illegal immigrant hiding through army transport | ||
Email in June from Sun Journo to Brooks “ref today’s splash… leading TV and radio bulletins… please approve 4k for ace military contact” | ||
Half an hour later Brooks replies “Thanks, xxxxxx” | ||
Chalkley shows jury the filled in Thomas Coke form for collection of payments by Bettina Jordan-Barber | ||
Late June 09 Sun article about dress and personal appearance. July: Sun exclusive about a phone stolen in China. Aug: soldier loses 2nd leg | ||
Fourth story from late 2009: Sun exclusive about a soldier dying from swine ‘flu. | ||
Sun journalist emails Brooks for approval over the previous four stories for a total of £4k “as ever… very cheap at the price” | ||
Brooks replies the same day; “Yes”. Email forwards to Charlotte Hull. “Here’s the OK from the boss.” | ||
Five minute break | ||
Before the break Justice Saunders tells jury: “Sorry you had to go through that. It wasn’t rivetting. But needed to be done” | ||
Witness – Belinda Vern (Head of Army Secretariat) | ||
Prosecution Counsel questions Belinda Vern | ||
Prosecution calls Belinda Vern as a witness: head of army secretariat from Andover in Hampshire | ||
Part of Vern’s job is to advise press office. She started working at land forces in 2008 – her middle manager was Bettina Jordan-Barber | ||
“Betsy oversaw… issues to do with media stories over army discipline” Vern tells the jury about Jordan-Barber | ||
Vern says Jordan-Barber should not have had contact with media over soldier fatalities. Her security clearance was high ‘developed vetting’ | ||
Vern confirms Jordan-Barber would have had access to ‘sensitive material’ which she could have taken home over weekends or holidays | ||
Chalkley for the prosecution brings up standing orders for security instructions for secretariat | ||
On Part 1 of Army Standing Orders: Security Intent explains various reasons for breaches | ||
Chalkley explains the document is redacted by MOD for security reasons. Employees are required to report to security officer any breaches | ||
Second exhibit from Vern: ‘Leaks of Official Information’ says “leak usually take form of reports in public media…. causes political harm” | ||
More on ‘Leaks’ – lost information is not counted as a leak. | ||
Chalkley for crown takes Vern to a section on ‘new briefs’ from her department to support press office and ministers over ‘incidents’ | ||
Chalkley goes to a news brief dated 02/10/06 relating to Sun story about drunken officer. Background not for release section only for MOD | ||
The news brief suggest the new brief was in response to a story already in Sun. It has a ‘lines to take’ and ‘if pressed’ sections of info | ||
Vern has been asked to identify the news briefs related to the Sun stories previously brought forward in evidence today. | ||
Counsel for Rebekah Brooks cross examines Belinda Vern | ||
Laidlaw for Brooks cross examines Vern: “I won’t keep you long.” Asks how the MOD was organised, relation with press office and Vern’s | ||
MOD press office was in a different building, Vern confirms. Jordan-Barber was already in place when Vern arrived. She left office in 2009 | ||
Laidlaw clarifies that Jordan-Barber had access to news briefs until 2009. In new role occasionally she might have done. | ||
Laidlaw establishes that Jordan-Barber might have had other sources of info she relayed to Sun, outside of her office | ||
Vern confirms that on one of the pieces of evidence Jordan-Barber may have had a friendship with someone | ||
Laidlaw turns to MOD news briefs and background ‘not to be released to media’ and how that changes in some instances | ||
Laidlaw clarifies that MOD “lines to take” are position one. “If pressed” is position two. They are defensive positions, Vern agrees. | ||
Laidlaw turns to a Vern reply to press office when Sun have got hold of a letter about appearance of service personnel. | ||
The Sun letter to MOD press officer is from 2009 querying why appearances matter when so much else was going on during Afghanistan. | ||
Another email exchange between Vern and Defence Media Communications who is in contact with Sun journalist. | ||
Laidlaw asks if it’s clear Sun journo was alerting press office. Vern says media office “under pressure” | ||
Press office email addresses Sun journo “good to chat to you about this” . | ||
Laidlaw says “that is an illustration of a practice” of Sun journo “not suggesting xxx was seeking permission, but would pre-notify..” | ||
Vern says she cannot answer she cannot answer that prenotification except on this specific story | ||
Laidlaw asks that apart from these ‘defensive positions’ MOD would be encouraging publicity. “There would be occasions, yes” | ||
Vern says news briefs are never intended for proactive use and confirms Jordan-Barber was in charge of discipline related matters | ||
Jury is out till next Monday in #hackingtrial tomorrow is reserved for legal argument | ||
8 Lessons From the Murdoch Phone Hacking Trial http://thebea.st/1bhSYsl via @thedailybeast | ||
Phone Hacking Trial: Police investigate Army officer over £4,000 picture of Prince William in The Sun… http://wp.me/pMDHB-6hI via @INFORRM |
Note: All the defendants deny all the charges. The trial continues.
Related Articles
8 Lessons From the Murdoch Phone Hacking Trial
News of the World Budget 2005-06: Cutting Mulcaire’s Costs by £70k
Three standout revelations from the first month of the UK phone hacking trial
It’s Personal: The Blair Murdoch War of Words over Wendi Deng
Andy Coulson given sight of the 2000 page Goodman Case in 2006
Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 26 Nov
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 27 Nov
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 28 Nov
Links: The Trial So Far | Full Trial Summary | Indexed Evidence | Breaking News
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 9 Dec | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 10 Dec | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 11 Dec | Live Tweeting the hacking trial