Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 5 Mar

Wednesday 5 March 2014

Summary
Rebekah Brooks Defence continues
Brooks questioned by David Spens QC – Counsel for Clive Goodman
Brooks questioned by Neil Saunders QC – Counsel for Charlie Brooks
Brooks questioned by William Clegg QC – Counsel for Mark Hanna
Rebekah Brooks Cross Examination by the Prosecution
Brooks questioned by Anthony Edis QC for the Crown

Rebekah Brooks Defence continues
Brooks questioned by David Spens QC – Counsel for Clive Goodman
Back at the #hackingtrial continuing with cross examination of Rebekah Brooks.
David Spens QC, counsel for Clive Goodman, is continuing with his cross examination.
Spens goes to the Count One Blue File from the voluminous bundles the jury have acquired over four months of the #hackingtrial at Court 12
Spens goes to the PCC Editor’s code of practice: para 3 on privacy. Para 8 : Journalists must not publish material from voicemails
Spens points out that Brooks said previously that the editor’s code was put into NI employment contracts – all employees
Brooks says she thinks this would be incorporated into contracts in 2006: she agrees she took the code very seriously
“It was absolutely in the category of a serious breach of privacy,” said Brooks previously. She stands by this.
Brooks agrees she knew phone hacking was a criminal offence after the arrests of Goodman, and a breach of the code before then
“Any breach of the code was a disciplinary,” says Brooks of prior to 06 and her understanding of RIPA and phone hacking law
Brooks is shown a draft letter from 27/03/07 to PCC. Brooks says she may have seen the letter but normally managing editor dealt with PCC
Brooks agrees “phone message tapping” letter was originally drafted for her: “Sun deplores the kind of snooping revealed by Goodman case”
“I think the sentiment is there in regards to intercepting voicemails of Royals,” says Brooks: It reflects her sentiment in March 2007
Brooks agrees this sentiment about PCC code would be the same at the NOTW: “Yes, I assume so”
Brooks says she would have dismissed Goodman if she were NOTW editor in 2006
Spens goes through the timeline of Goodman’s arrest, dismissal and £70k payment on 08/02/07 from NI.
22/02/07 letter from Colin Myler to PCC is now shown to the jury
Myler answers some questions from the PCC post guilty plea of Goodman. “the Goodman case appears to have been a rogue exception”
Spens says Myler’s letter was the origin of the “rogue” reporter line
“This was a line that had currency till to 2009” says Spens of “rogue reporter”: “it was NI’s line that I inherited when I became CEO”
“By the time I became CEO the For Neville email had become public…” says Brooks of rogue reporter.
Brooks agrees that she had no reason to disagree with “rogue reporter” line for the next two years.
Spens says “rogue reporter remained the line until the “For Neville’ email in 2009” when it became insupportable
12/04/07 lunch at RAC club lunch with Goodman and Brooks is now explored. “You offered him a job?” “That’s is correct”
Spens cites Brooks previous line about offering Goodman job: “It’s a news International decision made by you and Les Hinton?”
Brooks says with “my multiple daily contact with Mr Hinton it was he who told me of employment case and ‘other way to solve it'”
Brooks says HR person would have been involved in Goodman offer, Daniel Clegg, and perhaps John Chapman, NI lawyer
Spens says it was on 02/03/07 that Goodman complained against his dismissal from NI. 23/03/07 First of two hearings with Myler, and CLOKE
Second Goodman hearing 20/05/07 second part of internal hearing with Myler and Cloke (not Clegg) from HR
Brooks saysfshe was aware that Goodman’s employment tribunal might go public if not settled.
Brooks says she knew about employment claim before that Goodman lunch and that he was alleging “others at NOTW” knew of phone hacking
Brooks agrees that she knew Goodman had alleged “others at the NOTW” were involved in phone hacking in April 07
Brooks can’t remember who exactly Goodman had named but she remembers Kuttner, Coulson and another NOTW journo
Brooks had said an employment tribunal would be “embarassing” in previous evidence and “some financial settlement might stop it happening”
Brooks clarifies: she thought some kind of employment might resolve the dispute rather than a financial settlement.
“My understanding of my role was to offer Mr Goodman employment,” says Brooks of April 2007: he wasn’t making allegations against her
“Obviously I couldn’t offer Mr Goodman a job without approval of CEO,” says Brooks: “I think the problem had been brought to me”
“When I was told of the problem I think my role was to offer him a job to prevent him going to a tribunal,” Brooks explains of job offer.
“I had a couple of conversations with Mr Hinton about it,” says Brooks. “I thought the job offer…. I was asked to see if it was an option”
“Did it come from you or from Les Hinton in the first place,” asks Spens. “I think either he said to me… we could offer him a job”
“I think it was Mr Hinton’s idea, but it seems unfair to say it… he wouldn’t have known the details of the Diana Magazine,” says Brooks
“Effectively you were being asked to buy him off on behalf of the company?” says Spens. Brooks “I was offering him a job to stop tribunal”
Brooks agrees of bookazine job offer to Goodman on Diana was “to take him back into the News International fold”
23/04/07 11 days after lunch Goodman offered £12.5 for years work on book “not a lot of money compared to what earning previously?”
Brooks agrees this is a low rate: 12.5k for 6 months. Goodman was previously on 100k a year Spens says.
09/05/07 email to Goodman cited “Clive I do need a decision on Diana project” and offering subbing job at the Sun “runs in the family”
Goodman email reply says he’ll pass on Diana contract but wanted to talk to Brooks about retraining as a sub-editor.
9 days later – 2 days before 2nd internal hearing – Brooks explains more about the subbing course to Goodman.
30/05/07 Goodman internal appeal rejected. Brooks can only remember it be being settled. That happened late June early July. Hinton told her
Brooks says she was “absolutely not” told what the settlement with Goodman was: Hinton “told me it was confidential”
Brooks questioned by Neil Saunders QC – Counsel for Charlie Brooks
Neil Saunders for Charlie Brooks cross examines Brooks on Guardian leaks.
Brooks says she discussed these leaks were her husband. She discussed the Weatherup leak of desk being cleared in March 2011
Brooks confirms that leaks around Milly Dowler expose and Coulson’s arrest was something else she discussed with her husband
Saunders for Charlie Brooks cites three emails (Draft RB statement) between Dowler expose and Coulson arrest.
Brooks cannot remember where she was when she sent this draft statement to Charlie in July 2011
Brooks questioned by William Clegg QC – Counsel for Mark Hanna
Clegg for Hanna cross examines Brooks
Brooks says she didn’t have much direct contact with Mark Hanna before July 2011: using first names is her style confirms Brooks.
She agrees first name use did not denote any friendship between her and Hanna.
Brooks says the death threats to her began around April 2011 and protection arranged by Mark Hanna.
“Very limited contact” says Brooks of Hanna. Initial security was “static security” in Oxfordshire in London, and “mobile” while in transit
Clegg turns to July 2011 and the Milly Dowler allegations: Brooks “there was big increase in concern”
Clegg talks of a “large wodge of correspondence” addressed to her “some of it offensive, some of it threatening”: she didn’t see it.
“I got some of the emails direct’ says Brooks. But the mail went through PAs and then to Hanna and staff for a threat assessment.
“I wasn’t aware of each one coming in and what it said,” says Brooks of hate mail. “It went to security to be assessed”
Brooks talks about “additional address” needing protection during her weekend at Enstone Manor. She and Charlie travelled separately there
“He normally took the car with him,” Brooks says of her new driver. He didn’t stay in Enstone.
Charlie travelled to Enstone in the Range Rover agrees Brooks.
Brooks doesn’t think they told her security detail about Sunday trip to Lewisham police station
Brooks agrees she left the Range Rover at Enstone that Sunday.
Brooks said she “absolutely did not” ask Hanna to destroy any document or device.
Rebekah Brooks Cross Examination by the Prosecution
Brooks questioned by Anthony Edis QC for the Crown
Edis cross examines Brooks for the prosecution.
Edis asks if on June 09 Brooks knew News International were covering up NOTW phone hacking. She says “No”
Brooks says her state of mind in June 09 at appointment as CEO was the same as 2007: just Goodman and Mulcaire.
Brooks agrees that the five hacking victims Mulcaire was sentenced for were nothing to do with Mr Goodman.
Brooks agrees Goodman was the royal editor and gossip column about parliament.
Edis names the five victims of Mulcaire: “not Royal Editor’s targets are they?” “No,” Brooks agrees. She believed there were another 100
Brooks agrees that News International never spoke publicly about the “other hundred”
Brooks speaks about News International “full on rigorous inquiry.. police closed the case” on Goodman/Mulcaire sentencing.
“They didn’t mention these other hundred hacking victims then” says Edis.
“The fact is you knew from the time you spoke to Surtees that the whole truth had not emerged,” says Edis.
“It was police information given to me off the record,” says Brooks of 100-110 victims named by police.
“You know didn’t you the whole truth didn’t come out during the trial?” Edis: Brooks “I don’t see I saw it like that.”
“In fact you knew and believed that the first police inquiry was rather superficial,” says Edis to Brooks.
“It was the counter terrorism squad,” says Brooks: “They were taking the investigation seriously.. only needed 5 to ten”
Brooks talks about police needing new messages.
Brooks agrees that the public thought there were just five victms, and a single rogue reporter. “And that wasn’t true?”
“It was believed to be true.” says Brooks. “Not by you,” says Edis.
“You believed that NI behaviour between 2007 and 2009 was honourable?” asks Edis. “Yes I did,” says Brooks.
“Did you carry on with the coverup when you became CEO” asks Edis. “No,” says Brooks.
Brooks is asked if she noticed what the judge said in 2007? “No. Show it to me” says Brooks. Judgement shown to jury
Judgement 26/01/07 by Justice Gross shown to jury.
“You have not dealt with Goodman but others at News International” says judgement in 2007 of Mulcaire.
Mulcaire had a higher sentence than Goodman “because he did more crime” agrees Brooks.
Edis repeats the question about higher sentence for Mulcaire, and different victims: “I don’t think I knew that was how sentencing perceived
Edis repeats the question about the higher sentence for phone hacking non Royal victims: Brooks agrees she did know.
Brooks is asked about other employers of Mulcaire at NOTW.
Edis asks whether, as Editor of the Sun, she would take interest in the Goodman story: “we would have covered it straight”
Edis says that Brooks would have checked the Sun coverage: she agrees she would have checked the Goodman sentencing story
“This was a huge story not only for NI but your whole profession,” says Edis. Brooks agrees “It was a big story”
Judge’s ruling says Mulcaire was working for people other than Goodman. Brooks says she had no idea Mulcaire was passing on info.
Laidlaw intervenes: asking if there’s any evidence that Brooks was shown transcript or at the court.
Edis asks: “Did you have a reporter at the Old Bailey who could have told you what happened?” Brooks agrees “yes”
“You discovered Mulcaire was working for you as Editor, so you’d be taking a close interest and would know what the judge had said” Edis
Break for 15 mins
Back after the break at the #hackingtrial at Court 12 of the Old Bailey.
Edis continues with questions about court transcript of Mulcaire Goodman trial: “I think I have seen it in preparation for the case”
Edis says NI executive had a copy: Brooks can’t remember being shown.
“The world’s press and public can hear it… you didn’t need a document you had a reporter there,” says Edis.
“My view at the time it was a sentencing hearing… Mulcaire convicted for 5 names of a pool of 100-110,” says Brooks.
Edis “May I ask the question again… did you know what the judge said? Brooks: “I must have done at the time”
Edis turns to an internal legal note from NI about Brooks’ conversation on 14/09/06 with Detective Superintendent Surtees.
Brooks says she can’t remember taking any notes with Surtees. “Was it in your habit to take notes?” Yes says Brooks.
“On occasion I took a notebook” says Brooks. “When people say it’s off the record they don’t like you to take notes.”
Edis asked about “Goodman and Mulcaire bang to rights” Brooks: “Yes that’s what they told me.”
Brooks can’t remember mention of a ‘list’ of victims. “I think he might have said notes rather than list” of 110 victims.
Brooks can’t remember if she was told Glenn Mulcaire had a list: “maybe”
Laidlaw intervenes: “I don;t want to alert the witness. problem of making assertion of someone’s else’s document… do it fairly to witness”
“The point that Mr Laidlaw wants you to be aware of…. raid on Mulcaire’s property produce a list of 100-110 victims,” says Edis.
“Eight years has gone by…. I just don’t remember a ‘list’ being… I don’t remember him saying that. Just remember notes,” says Brooks.
Edis cites another legal note to Andy Coulson about “1 million pounds of payments”: Brooks “yes I think they mentioned a figure of a million
Edis cites other victims named in 2007: Clifford, Jowell, Prescott and Temple
“They told you Tessa Jowell had been hacked?” asks Edis. “I think so, yes” replies Brooks. She remembers big story in 2006
Brooks says she thinks police said Prescott and Temple were “potential victims” in 2006
“As a journalist in 206 you’d probably remember there was a big story about John Prescott having an affair.” says Edis.
“Yes it was a Daily Mirror exclusive, I do remember that,” says Brooks of Prescott affair.
Edis asks Brooks about note “at this stage they don’t want to widen it to other NOTW journalists…”
“Obviously I was quite concerned as to who had accessed my phone,” says Brooks. She thinks police didn’t know who tasked it at time.
“Obviously they do have top lefts” (tasking detail) says Edis of Mulcaire notes.
Justice Saunders intervenes to clarify. Brooks explains: “I couldn’t understand why NOTW would write a story about my personal life”
Initials mentioned in that legal note of 2006 suggest a NOTW journalist.
Brooks says “I don’t remember X being mentioned, but if it was I would have certainly [passed it on to NI exec] – redacted for legal reasons
Legal note cites a verbatim voicemail for Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant used in NOTW story.
“Some names of potential victims… but they were still investigating” agrees Brooks of legal note in 2006
Edis cross refers to another legal note to Andy Coulson.
Edis goes to paras 1 and 8 of another legal note to confirm this is what the police said to Brooks in 2006.
“In terms of NOTW they suggested they would not widen investigation unless they got direct evidence of other journos directly accessing”
Hugh Grant and Jemima Khan also referenced in this second legal note to Coulson.
Second legal note says police have evidence of Mulcaire contact with NOTW:
Brooks agrees the police meeting was extremely important, and her “professional skill” is reporting things accurately to others.
Brooks says she doesn’t remember other NOTW journo being mentioned by police. But if she did she would have told NI exec.
Another document shown on the screen to the jury at Court 12
It’s an email from Coulson to Brooks 29/11/06:
Brooks to Coulson 29/11/06 : “Guardian been on about my phone and/or Dacre of other journalists”
“I certainly remember the police telling me that,’ says Brooks of Dacre. “Maybe the Guardian told me that”
Coulson replies “I know this is Les’ idea but don’t think partic helpful…. Mulcaire will think we have leaked it”
Brooks confrims: “It as Les Hinton’s idea to leak my phone being hacked”
Brooks names a “list” in reply to Coulson. “Jowell, Kimberley and Blunks”
Brooks says “shortly after my meeting with police there was an article in Guardian which listed some names.”
Brooks is unsure whether she got additional victim names from Guardian or conversations with NI execs.
“I’d had dinner with David Blunkett after my meeting with police” says Brooks.
“Who told you Mr Blunkett had been a hacking victim?” asks Edis. “Blunkett… had asked Sir Ian Blair, and he phone wasn’t accessed”
Edis asks how Brooks knew Blunkett was on Mulcaire’s list: “I don’t remember all the names the police told me.”
“You’d be unlikely to forget the name Blunkett in 24 hour,” asks Edis. “Did Mr Coulson never tell you?” “No, not at the time. Never.”
“I told you when I got back from Australia they knew… the whole story” says Brooks email to Coulson about Guardian media in November 06
“It read as if you already know Coulson knows about the list doesn’t it?” asks Edis. “Yes,” says Brooks.
“I don’t remember the existence of this master list… I came back and talking to Les Hinton and Coulson, obviously we were talking”
Brooks agreed she had spoken to Coulson about phone hacking by this time.
Brooks on original August 06 conversation with Coulson: “I’m pretty sure he didn’t believe they were true… then became clear they were”
“I think it was the police who told me Clive Goodman was ‘bang to rights'” says Brooks. “What did Mr Coulson tell you?” asks Edis
“It was established quite quickly from… confusion… to it was clear it was true,” says Brooks
Brooks says Coulson “may have told me he talked to Clive but I don’t remember him discussing this matter”
Edis establishes Brooks had a “close and confidential friendship” at this time. “The most natural thing in the world that he would tell you”
Brooks agree that they had several conversations about it. She can’t remember if Coulson told her about meeting Goodman in Cafe Rouge
Edis turns to Coulson’s line in the email “it’s all going so well”: this is the date of the guilty pleas at Old Bailey.
“What was it do you think was ‘going well’ that day?” asks Edis. “Odd thing to say day Royal Editor pleads guilty” says Broos. Edis: “Yes”
“So what was going well?” asks Edis again. “I can’t believe Andy Coulson would it’s all going well” on the day of guilty pleas.
“There might have been other things that happened,” says Brooks.
Brooks denies that “it going quite well” could mean they were happy no one else was exposed for phone hacking.
“Is there any other explanation” asks Edis. Brooks says given the time lapse she can’t remember.
Saunders asks about the designation of GM: did she ever call Mulcaire “Glenn’? No, Brooks said it must be the notetaker calling him Glenn.
Brooks agrees that she was “mining the police”: they might have put her notebook away “and keep your memory alert”
“I think I rang” says Brooks rather than taking notes after police meeting.
Edis points out there’s very little about hacking of Brooks in this legal note: it’s all about News of the World.
Brooks says she told police she wouldn’t act as a witness for the police on phone hacking in 2006 because it would be “odd legal situation”
“Just explain what’s complicated about it?” asks Edis. “It would be very difficult for the Sun to be witness against sister newspaper”
Edis: “But against Mulcaire… you thought by giving evidence against Mulcaire you’d be giving evidence against NOTW” Brooks “Yes”
“Hacking your phone had nothing to do with the Royals?” “No,’ says Brooks. “So what did your phone have to do with News of the World?”
“What about phone hacking of you? Why did you think that was done by NOTW?” asks Edis.
“He must have been passing that information on,” says Brooks of Mulcaire hacking her. Two names associated with tasking hacking her
Saunders asks more questions about police “only having evidence from NOTW” on payment records for Mulcaire on legal note.
Edis cites a reply to PCC letter to Brooks: two drafts with slight differences 27/03/07
Brooks explains how managing editors dealt with PCC complaints with reference to her.
Brooks agrees it is “inconceivable” that she wouldn’t have known about PCC reply “deploring kind of snooping” revealed by Goodman case
Brooks agrees she “deplored” that kind of snooping. The letter says they made “strenuous steps” to prevent it.
Letters says the Sun “made strenuous efforts in the past to make sure the code is adhered to”: Edis asks if the word ‘not’ should be added
Brooks denies this. She references Sophie Wessex story at NOTW as an example of public interest test.
Edis “At neither newspaper were any efforts made to ensure journalist and PIs did not hack phone?” “That phrase I did not use,” says Brooks
“But you learned in the late 90s it was possible?” asks Edis of phone hacking. Brooks replies “yes”
Edis turns to section in Sun letter that says breaches of the code should lead “to disciplinary and instant dismissal”. Brooks agrees
“They’re not all hanging offences breaches of the code,’ says Edis. Brooks agrees “maybe minor breaches depending on their explanation”
“Any journalist who works for the Sun… who breaks the law… liable to be instantly dismissed,” says letter on 2007.
“It is true, but there are certain exceptions.” says Brooks. Edis: “It does says any breach of the law is a breach of contract” says Edis.
Brooks explains it’s very hard to write a clause in a contract that makes exception for law breaking in huge public interest.
“Who decides whether that’s right?” asks Edis. “It depends on the risk involved…” says Brook: “There are levels of criminal offences”
Edis asks if “criminal offences” would be approved in a rank junior to editor. “Usually” editor would decide.
“In the frenetic nature of making news decisions, this would come to me,” Brooks says. She would allow law breaking if in public interest.
Paragraph from PCC letter cited on “cash payments”: must be approved by editor. “Is that true?” asks Edis. “There is some fluidity”
“What fluidity?” asks Edis. “Some of these payments would be left to my deputy,” says Brooks. “He’s your deputy. He does what you do”
“Did you not establish any rules,” asks Edis. “Yes we did… But I might not be there… cash payments might need to made quickly”
Edis turns to line of letter: “no cash payments made without editor or editor of the day.. .is that true” Brooks explains deputy could sign
Edis points out that Brooks said the managing editor could sign. “So this isn’t true” Edis says of letter. “Why doesn’t letter say that?”
“What I’m going to suggest to you this letter is seriously mislead in three ways,” says Edis about snooping, law breaking and cash payments
“How did this letter ever get sent?” asks Edis. “I agree with the letter” says Brooks. “In the main these were the rules”
“The bottom paragraph could be misleading but it is does say “liable”” about breaking law and instant dismissal.
Edis says the PCC letter says the managing editor would also authorise them, not instead of the editor.
Saunders asks more about the letter being ‘misleading’ on cash payment “they need to know what they’re authorising and where they come from”
‘What’s point of the editor authorising these payment if he didn’t know where they came from?” asks Saunders.
Saunders asks if letter is trying to convey “this isn’t a rubber stamp. We know what’s going ont?” Brooks agrees.
Back at #hackingtrial after lunch: prosecuting counsel Anthony Edis QC, cross examining Rebekah Brooks.
Edis moves onto the meeting with Clive Goodman at the RAC: “Did you see any conflict with what you said to PCC?”
“I didn’t see it like that…” says Brooks. “Why didn’t you see it like that? asks Edis. “I remember… it not being a reporting role”
“You were happy to employ him.” says Edis: “Though he’d been accessing voices of Royal family. What was the plus side of employing him?”
“To shut him up.” saids Edis. “To stop him going public with unfounded allegations” says Brooks.
“Did you talk to Mr Coulson?” “Yes he said they were unfounded” says Brooks. “Did you talk to you anymore about the Blunkett story?” “No”
Brooks talks about informing another NI exec who never told her they had tapes of voicemails of Blunket
Brooks confirms the Goodman payment was a confidential arrangement: “so he had been shut up then?” asks Edis.
“Yes, those were the words” Brooks. Edis: “So confidential they didn’t tell you?” asks Edis. “It was editor of Sun it was a corporate thing”
Justice Saunders points out the meeting with Goodman was before final internal hearing. “You didn’t know internal appeal was still going on
“Let’s keep with this narrative and move forward,” says Edis turning to Guardian article 08/07/09 which said NOTW had paid £700k to Taylor
Brooks was about to become CEO at the time of the Guardian article. “Very soon after you discovered… the suppressed evidence” says Edis
“They suggested thousands of mobile phones had been hacked,” points out Edis. “Did you become familiar with this transcript?” Yes”
“This is the transcript of a number of voicemails transcribed to create a draft article which was never published” says Edis.
Edis points out there was a Select Committee about phone hacking on the day Brooks took role as CEO in September 09
“It was a big deal from day one of your new job” says Edis. Brooks agrees.
“What investigations did you carry out when you became CEO of News Int onto what was still on NOTW servers?” asks Edis. “None’ says Brooks
“Did you do any investigation about phone hacking when you became CEO?” “No” “Why not” “The Gordon Taylor issue had been done and out there”
NI press release 8th and 10th 2009 responds to Gordon Taylor settlement, but Edis says you stuck to “rogue reporter” line
Brooks looks through the two NI press releases in 2009 in response to Guardian revelations about Gordon Taylor pay out.
Statement says NI ‘vigorously… comply with relevant legislation”: Edis asks what Brooks did to follow that through.
“It was pretty clear the serious consequences of any journalist engaging in these practices,” says Brooks. “Also working with our lawyer”
10/07/09 NI statement “has delayed making this statement until all detailed checks have been made”
Gist of NI statement: Apart from Mulcaire and Goodman… the only story arising out of phone hacking was Gordon Taylor: story was never used
“At any stage as far as you know, did anyone manage to discover this transcript had been forwarded (to another NOTW journo)?” Brooks “No”
Brooks says this wasn’t clear until discovery of emails in 2011 and start of Operation Weeting. Edis turns to letter from PCC in July 2009
Baroness Buscombe letter to Brooks addresses “reignited interest in subterfuge” in parliament and press in the summer of 2009.
Edis cites the reply in Brooks’ name: “I would have edited it,” says Brooks. “I think I asked the corporate affairs dept to talk to editors”
“Obviously I would have read it because it went out in my name, I would have edited it” says Brooks.
Letter says all NI papers have put in further measures to “prevent practices recurring” and steps to ensure journos work within law.
“What further measures had been put in place,” asks Edis. Brooks: “At the Sun… further emphasis on code”: journos not aware of RIPA act
“Mainly the lawyers on the Sun… Justin Walford… he’d talk to journalists” says Brooks.
Edis asks about “working within the law” and the fact Brooks had said there was a public interest defence for breaking it.
“It’s says you’d work within the law, and the position was you didn’t always work within the law,” says Edis of Brooks’ reply to PCC
Brooks talks about ‘technical breach of the law’ by smuggling knives onto British airways to test security.
Saunders asks for any example of “a further measure” put in place after Goodman and Mulcaire. Brooks says PIs only used in exceptions
Brooks says that this was in response to the information commissioner report. “So under pressure” says Edis. “All industries including legal
Brooks says she wrote the letter to NI after Guardian revelations in 2009.
Brooks letter to PCC turns to subterfuge: “not necessarily breach of criminal law” says Edis. “That’s right”
Letter to PCC establishes the rules of using subterfuge at the Sun depending on whether the “public interest was sufficient”
On cash payments’: “no cash payments are made without written authorisation from editors etc….and always kept to a minimum: is that true?”
Brooks says no cash payments at the Times, maybe Sunday Times, but much more prevalent at NOTW “now reduced by 89%”
Brooks is asked why there used to be a lot of cash payments at NOTW: “It had a very strong tradition of investigations….often needed cash”
“For cricket match fixing I had to approve £125,000 in cash. Always like that investigtions”: Brooks said she approved that when CEO in 09
Brooks letter to PCC in 2009 says no cash payments are made at the Sun – and repeats the terms of approval: editor and managing editor
Edis turns to the “next thing that happened… a sequence of events which led to you settling with Max Clifford
BREAKING: “Do you agree you settled with Max Clifford to stop Mulcaire naming names?” asks Edis. “Yes, in part” says Brooks.
Edis explains that Max Clifford fell out with Andy Coulson because of Kerri Katona treatment: “I thought Les put a ban on Max being used”
Edis establishes the terms of the Max Clifford settlement were agreed by her: NI would cover legal costs “a lot of money in the end”
Edis says a document estimates 200k or more. Brooks would have to approve the payment.
Brooks explains Max Clifford was “all in… just under a million” over three years for settling.
Brooks explains Clifford: “earned a lot of money at NOTW… and News international” “It wasn’t a contract though, was it?” says Edis.
“You were perfectly entitled as a company to stop buying his product” says Edis. Brooks explains that “public ban” lowered bidding.
“He made no legal claim of that at all” says Edis. “What he has was a claim for a voicemail hack which wasn’t worth very much.”
“This million pounds was something of a gift” “We got a lot of stories from it….I accept the motive was stop Mulcaire naming names”
“Not the nice side of the business,” says Brooks of £1m to Clifford but he was “great generator of stories and that was a commercial deal”
“You needed to stop Mulcaire naming anyone else, because you didn’t want the truth to come outt” says Edis to Brooks.
“We were absolutely engaged in the civil claims.. reputational damage. Glenn Mulcaire was unreliable. We were protecting the company”
“Of course you did know what he could say.. because you were editor when he was offered his contract in 2001” says Edis.
“You knew exactly what he could say about that contract,” says Edis. Brooks says Mulcaire was “engaged in legitimate private work”
“Who told you that?” asks Edis. “My assumption was…” “You’re assumption? Did you not ask anyone?” says Edis.
“Did you ask anyone what he had been doing during your editorship of NOTW?” asks Edis. Brooks “Not particularly, no”
“You got to see the police… you put him on a private retainer when you were editor… you never asked what he was doing?” asks Edis.
Saunders: “When you discovered the retainer did you not go to anyone as ask them ‘What was he doing? I need to know'”?
“I didn’t think it happened during my editorship. I didn’t believe it happened” says Brooks. “Why didn’t you ask Kuttner?” asks Edis
“Kuttner authorised every payment made to Mulcaire, he would be a good person to speak to,” says Edis. “Yes. Perhaps.”
“I didn’t ask Mr Kuttner” says Brooks. “No, because you already knew what he was doing” says Edis.
“You knew he was being prosecuted for phone hacking… isn’t it an obvious question ‘when did it start’?” asks Edis.
“You were in a better position than the police,” asserts Edis “I think the position was the reverse,” says Brooks: “the police had all info
Brooks agrees NI had all the emails at the time. Released under civil action.
“NOTW’s position at the time in 06 was from Mylers letter to PCC that Mr Goodman was a rogue exception” says Brooks.
Edis turns to the New York Times article in 03/09/10: NI responded “biased and unprofessional… because commercial rivals”
Edis reminds Brooks she was CEO at that time.
Edis points out that the article cites a “court order” divulging the number of journalist, Dan Evans, who had been suspended.
“Dan Evans was known about by you as CEO?” says Edis: “And Dan Evans was never sacked?” “He was suspended immediately”
“What did you do about this recent allegation of phone hacking in NYT?” asks Edis. Brooks says Myler says Evans “emphatic in his denial”
“We suspended him immediately pending our own investigation” says Brooks of Dan Evans. He remembers nothing of ‘sticky keys’ explains
NIC supply company was being sued, Edis explains, which is one of Brooks’ companies. “In my head… it slipped in his pocket”
“Are you aware of any investigation that was done…. before decisions were made to defend this case,” asks Edis. Brooks says Myler assured
10 minute break
Back at #hackingtrial after the break.
Edis goes back to Max Clifford briefly.
Edis cites a legal note of meeting Brooks attended: “RB says Cliffords argument.. doesn’t want to be obliged to bring in stories
“Was he obliged to bring in stories?”Edis. “Yes” “Was that ever written down?” “No” “If he hadn’t brought in any stories””
Brooks replies to this “but he did bring in stories.” Edis asks if NI kept any record of any payments to Clifford and what for
“Commercial deal, what do you mean by that?” asks Edis. “He bought in stories” says Brooks. “Why wasn’t it written down?” asks Edis
“I’d been trustworthy in dealing with him over the years, he didn’t need it in writing” But Brooks agrees it wasn’t separate from legal suit
“You could just have agree to pay him a £1m for stories if you didn’t have to pay his legal costs” says Edis. Brooks agrees.
Edis turns to email deletion: he adduces email about PAs getting rid of everything from prior to 2007. Brooks says Jan 2010 new cut off date
“yes Jan 10. Clean sweep. Thanks” Brooks instruction as CEO. “Yes subject to exceptions… we agreed on with lawyers”
Edis asks when ‘exceptions’ were first discussed to email deletion policy. Brooks “first system failures…. around 08”
Brook says Jan 10 email already had some exceptions to company wide deletion of emails related to “litigation”
Edis points out all companies have to retain any any actual or prospective litigation. “A general statement”
Edis asks “when is there a statement any specific exceptions related to any particular documents?” Brooks points to Jan 10 doc
Specific names were cited in a document in December 2010 “preserving all emails till further notice” of certain names.
Brooks says the email deletion would have been drawn up with “lawyers would have absolutely been aware of any litigation ongoing”
“Where you say ‘clean sweep’ you mean ‘not a clean sweep’?” asks Edis about Brooks’ email. She says means delete back to 2010.
Brooks says the policy was being formulated for the ‘right reasons’ to stop outages and emails falling over.
Brooks can’t remember 20/09/10 purge of 4.5 million emails from before 2005. “I don’t remember this one at all” says Brooks.
‘The policy was to keep NI emails… subject to ligitation… for a year. At this stage no suggestion litigation ongoing…” says Brooks.
Brooks says there was no work done by her EAs to delete emails: “I didn’t get round to it… my emails had to be excluded… as CEO”
Brooks explains CEO emails should have been kept for competition reasons due to bids NI was thinking of making at the time.
That is an admission: all emails from Jan 09 of Brooks’ to be kept.
“Do you know what actually happened to your emails?” asks Edis. “I just assumed they were as I saw them in my inbox,” says Brooks.
“The suggestion is you were using the email retention policy… so that any embarrassing emails were lost” says Edis. Brooks: “No I wasn’t”
“In the end not as many went as you had hoped…” says Edis. “I had no intention to use email retention… for my own purposes” says Brooks
Saunders wants to summarise deletion policy. Brooks wanted a year deletion from Jan 2011 back to Jan 2010.
“I think we awful problems with it,” says Brooks: “The whole thing stopped around Op Weeting… But my emails would have been deleted”
Edis moves onto NOTW Brooks file. Laidlaw draws attention to another admitted fact to “help your lordship draw things together”
Edis says this folder was produced by Mr McGill: “some documents concerning budget and performance of NOTW” for Brooks editorship
113 payments made by NOTW in April 2002 now adduced by Edis.
These are all payments, taxis, phones – “nothing to do with editorial decisions” says Edis.
“This isn’t every expense an editor would be considering. Most of it nothing to do with editors is that right?” asks Edis.
“I think mobile phone expenses might have come out of relevant dept… I’m not sure about that.” says Brooks.
“Signed off by desk head and approved by managing editor?” Brooks agrees. Brooks agrees that “lineage” and “pictures” require ed approval
Edis points to a lot of lineage payments made in this April 02 budget.
One of these “lineage’ payments was for Nine Consultancy: “No lineage from Mulcaire?” “Not as far as we know,” says Brooks.
“For example if he traced somebody and found somebody… no you’re right, I’m probably being over cautious” says Brooks.
Edis says lineage means you marry up payment with a story. “You should be looking for a story shouldn’t you?” asks Edis
Edis explains the committee set up before Brooks left. After she left it changed to MSC – an external body under Lord Grabiner.
Laidlaw intervenes: jury leave
Jury back in: Saunders explains “for once it’s quite hot in here…. we’ll carry on for a quarter of an hour or so”
Edis goes back to some other figures “budget 1989-2003” and a spreadsheet attempting to put relevant figures on same piece of paper.
Edis shows NOTW circulation figures remained around 4 million for the period of Brooks’ editorships
“One shouldn’t rely too exactly” on circulation figures, says Brooks. Edis points out revenues from NOTW were £93m 1998-99
NOTW income £88m £84m in next two years: but a rise in income in due to price rise in 2001. Underperformance by about £11m in 2001.
Ad revenue went up but circulation went down. Following year 2000-01 shortfall against budget at NOTW by three million: Brooks’ first year.
8 million shortfall in advertising revenue in Brooks’ first year, Brooks agrees.
Edis establishes that total direct costs was £94m rather £86m: total £16 million pounds shortfall because of rising costs and lower revenues
Final result was £58m – 16 million short “not a very happy state of affairs” says Edis.
“It’s not as successful as it was expected to be.. over £15m less than had been expected” points out Edis.
“The performance is falling sharply isn’ it?” says Edis. “It’s definitely less” agrees Brooks.
“3 budgets that are probably most relevant are also set out” Edis: News Desk, Editorial Management, Investigations rise from 174k to 13m
Brooks agrees that the “total budget overspend” was “definitely an issue” and she would have to make cuts.
Brooks explains that Sarah’s law caused some of the overspend at NOTW. “An 18 month campaign” “No, ten years.”
“You did pretty well with your budget management” says Edis of Brooks’ second year. “Yes,” says Brooks.
“It wasn’t Mr Kuttner doing well… it was your input which improved budget performance” says Edis. “It was a collective effort” says Brooks
Brooks explains how the weekly spending limit and bonus scheme to desk heads helped reduced budget. 10 a.m. tomorrow we continue.

Note: All the defendants deny all the charges. The trial continues.

Related Articles
Peter Jukes on ABC Radio
Rebekah Brooks Takes The Stand At Phone Hacking Trial – The Daily Beast
The Brooks Plan B and Blair Unofficial Advisor emails
Half Time at the Phone Hacking Trial
How the Kindness of Strangers crowd funded my Hacking Trial coverage

Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 28 Feb
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 3 Mar
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 4 Mar

Links: The Trial So Far | Full Trial Summary | Indexed Evidence | Breaking News

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 5 Mar

  1. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 6 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  2. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 10 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  3. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 11 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  4. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 6 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s