Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 11 Apr

Friday 11 April 2014

Summary
	Stuart Kuttner Defence Witness – Lord Black of Brentwood
		Lord Black is questioned on his knowledge of Stuart Kuttner
	Stuart Kuttner Defence Witness – Sara Payne
		Sara Payne is questioned on her friendship and working with Stuart Kuttner
		Sara Payne is cross examined by Counsel for Rebekah Brooks
	The Prosecution Cross-Examination of Stuart Kuttner Continues
		Stuart Kuttner is cross-examines on the PCC Code and Public Interest
		Knowledge of Dan Evans
		The Milly Dowler Investigation and the Surry Police
		Changes to the Milly Dowler Story
		Contact with Surry Police
		Kuttner questioned on News of the World budgets
		Mulcaire Contracts
		Payments to Police Offices
		The Prosecution close their cross-examination of Stuart Kuttner
	The Defence of Stuart Kuttner Concludes
		Counsel for Stuart Kuttner asks the last questions for his defence

Stuart Kuttner Defence Witness – Lord Black of Brentwood
	Lord Black is questioned on his knowledge of Stuart Kuttner
		Two more character witnesses for Stuart Kuttner at the #hackingtrial: first Lord Black.
		Lord Black of Brentwood is executive director of the Telegraph Group: he’s aware the allegations Stuart Kuttner faces.
		Black is a former director of PCC 1996 2005: dealing with high level complaint and liaising with figures across the newspaper industry
		The death of Princess Diana fell within the time of Black’s role at PCC.
		Black says he first came into contact with Kuttner in the summer of 1996 when he was “raw recruit”
		“Lord Wakeham said to me one of the first people you have to seek out is Stuart Kuttner… an enormously important person in the industry”
		“He will tell you what you need to know to do your job” says Black of Kuttner. He was told “he will never let you down”
		Black says he saw Kuttner throughout his time at PCC: “Stuart was the one I always went to… for a solution to a problem”
		“I needed to talk to him about how we needed to manage a solution across the newspaper industry” says Black of Kuttner
		Black talks about the press response to Omagh bombing: “the press should leave that grieving town”. Kuttner helped on that and Dunblane
		“He always helped me frame a request to the newspaper industry” says Black of Kuttner over disasters “when the aftermath is over”
		Black and Lord Wakeham talk about the reaction to Princess Diana’s death and “radical changes” to paparazzi and intrusion on grief and shock
		Kuttner was “one of the first people I talked to” says Black, on the recommendation of Lord Wakeham during the aftermath of Princess Diana
		“The changes on coverage of children was largely down to the meticulous work of Stuart” says Black of PCC.
		Black says he’s become a “very good friend” with Kuttner since he left the PCC: they still keep in touch.
		Black says he’s dealt with Kuttner on “two levels” – both professional and personal. “He’s the reporter’s reporter… intrepid” says Black
		“He would never ever play fast and loose with the rules” says Black. “He didn’t just talk about code and ethics… they were in his DNA”
		“I feel he has the highest professional standard, a man of the highest integrity” says Black of Kuttner.
		“As a friend I’ve always found him… a caring, loving, family man. I’m proud to have him as a friend” says Lord Black of Kuttner
Stuart Kuttner Defence Witness – Sara Payne
	Sara Payne is questioned on her friendship and working with Stuart Kuttner
		Stuart Kuttner‘s next witness is Sara Payne
		Sara Payne is question by Jonathan Caplan QC, counsel for Stuart Kuttner.
		Sara Payne is the mother of Sarah Payment who was abducted and murdered almost 14 years ago. She met Kuttner at that time.
		“We met with Rebekah… and got all of the agencies together, to find out how we could move it forward and make it different” says Payne
		Sara Payne confirms this became Sarah’s Law. She’s remained in touch with Kuttner in the intervening years.
		Sara Payne has become close friends with Kuttner’s wife Sylvia.
		Sara Payne has had a history of medical problems: “whenever I woke up Stuart was there” says Payne of his support.
		“He knows things about me no one else knows, and he’s never sought to publish or let anyone else know” says Payne of Kuttner
		“Stuart is a gentleman… manner and etiquette. He’s a good guy. He’s taught me an awful lot. He’s always on the phone” says Payne of Kuttner
		“Stuart’s been with me through many many things” says Payne. She used to contribute articles to the NOTW.
		“I was very new working in the newspaper industry” Payne says of constant requests for comment: “I looked to Stuart for guidance”
		Payne has now met other journalists in the industry and official in the Home Office: “I’ve been very fortunate”: she says of meeting Kuttner
		Payne wrote for last edition of NOTW: “On a personal level they stood behind me, not for the headlines, because it was the right thing to do
		Payne explains how she spent the last day of NOTW in the newsroom. The journalists were “mourning”: she cited picture of her daughter.
	Sara Payne is cross examined by Counsel for Rebekah Brooks
		Laidlaw cross examines Sara Payne for Rebekah Brooks.
		Payne explains she met Brooks while they were still searching for Sarah. They came up with Sarah’s Law – Kuttner became point of contact
		Hayley Barlow was also a point of contact and she’s now became a very close friend.
		“Our life just revolved around our family” says Payne, and when they became a media phenomenon “it was a crazy world”
		Payne says Brooks would always organise things for her other children:: “the focus wasn’t just on me”
		“Rebekah was always in the foreground too… she was one of the people I could call at 2 am in the morning” Payne says of Brooks
		Payne talks of the ‘behind the scenes’ work of Brooks – contact with politicians, gathering rival papers and taking competition out of story
		Payne explains how, at Party Political conferences, Sarah’s Law would be pooled among media in a non competitive way
		Payne says she has become friends with Brooks in the years since Sarah’s Law: “She’s very sweet natured… We’re both very direct”
The Prosecution Cross-Examination of Stuart Kuttner Continues
	Stuart Kuttner is cross-examines on the PCC Code and Public Interest
		Stuart Kuttner returns to the witness box to continue his cross examination by Anthony Edis QC
		Kuttner cannot recall specifically being consulted about the ‘Public Interest’ element of the PCC code
		Kuttner is asked about Brooks years as editor: he cannot remember being asked advice on “paying public officials for stories”
		Edis points out there is a section in the PCC code about intercepting telephone communications.
		Kuttner says phone hacking was “utterly unknown to me… wasn’t methodology I knew anything about”
		Edis turns to the 1999 PCC code about ‘listening devices’ and ‘intercepting private telephone conversations’
		Kuttner confirms he contributed to the drawing up of this code. “Are you really saying you haven’t heard of phone hacking?” asks Edis.
		Kuttner doesn’t agree that the ‘intercepting phone messages’ is the same as phone hacking.
		“It depends how you define public interest” say Kuttner of defence of phone intercepts. But he says there isn’t a public interest defence.
		“I tried to explain my attitude yesterday” Kuttner: if corruption of police or politicians exposed by intercepts “worthy of consideration”
		Kuttner is asked about 2002 and the disappearance of Milly Dowler: he says he doesn’t think phone hacking justified “to find a missing girl”
		Kuttner says his role was to “assisting authorities” when it came to a missing girl
		Kuttner explains what he means by macro managing: he didn’t look at the fine detail of the budgets.
	Knowledge of Dan Evans
		Edis adduces a series of offers of employment to Dan Evans at NOTW beginning in 2004. Kuttner’s department dealt with employment
		22/07/05 email from NOTW staff about ‘Jude and Sienna’ to several including Kuttner: “special checks Dan Evans has made”
		Kuttner remembers the names Jude and Sienna but not much else of this story. Edis: “Was it normal of emails of this kind to be sent to you?”
		“You were really quite involved in the journalism of the newspapers” says Edis. Kuttner denies this. Doesn’t know what special checks means
		Kuttner says he only recognised the face and name of Dan Evans when he was photographed outside the court.
		Kuttner remembers Evans worked on the features desk, but not exactly what he did.
		Edis turns to an expenses form: Kuttner recognises the authoriser as Paul Nicholas.
		This expense claim from Evans is for two Nokia phones, two SIM cards, and top up money.
		“I have no recollection of seeing a claim of that nature” says Kuttner of Evans’ expenses for two mobile phones.
		13/01/05 Dan Evans is given a mobile phone. Edis asks why on 14/02/05 two more phones would be approved.
		Kuttner is asked whether he would have approved this claim: “I might have queried it” says Kuttner.
		“I absolutely accept that” says Kuttner, that it would be questionable why Evans wanted two new mobiles a month after issue company mobile
		March 2006 Dan Evans expenses claim cited by Edis: another phone top up – this time authorised by Kuttner: “looks like signature” he says
		Kuttner says “I’m back to reconstruction… thousands of expenses came my way. I probably looked at the total… that doesn’t look bad’ £281
		“It back to my macro approach” says Kuttner: “I know the prosecution want to argue with, I know the police wanted to argue with”
		Caplan points out that Evans expense claim was for “police drug probe”
		Kuttner says he was “disturbed” by changes to police statement about his management style: “‘micro’ was substituted for the word ‘macro'”
		“I wouldn’t have had any hesitation approving it” says Kuttner of Evans expenses claim if it was for police drug probe.
		“My role at NOTW was not one of micromanagment” says Kuttner. Edis says the police have a tape.
		“I don’t want to get into an argument with you about what’s on the tape of your police interview” says Edis. He says this claim is micro
		Edis talks about an email about Thurlbeck getting a new computer for £1k: Kuttner says they were subject to approval.
	The Milly Dowler Investigation and the Surry Police
		Edis now turns the subject of Milly Dowler in cross examining Stuart Kuttner.
		Kuttner agrees he telephoned Surrey Police on Saturday afternoon in April 2002: there are three documents covering that conversation
		“What I have been reminded of and now remember” says Kuttner of Milly Dowler: “passing on that information which had been known to me”
		“There are three documents, and they’re not exactly the same… I want to know if you remember anything at all” asks Edis.
		Kuttner says he remembers wanting to speak to a police officer rather than press officer over “their search for missing school girl”
		“It’s not a case of your memory being wiped out by ill health” says Edis. “You did remember things before shown documents by police”
		Kuttner says he “wouldn’t argue” with the fact he had some memory of contacting Surrey Police during first police interview after arrest
		Edis cites a transcript of Kuttner’s first police interview: he recalled going to see senior officer and Chief Constable of Surrey Police
		Kuttner had remembered in 2012 that former Surrey Chief Constable and was by then Chief of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate
		Kuttner remembered a “synergy” between Sarah’s Law campaign at NOTW and the disappearance of Milly Dowler.
		Kuttner concedes that NOTW interest in Milly Dowler was partly because of Sarah’s Law, and some geographical coincidence
		Kuttner explains about offering rewards for information: he says he would often make the initial decision, and raise it with senior police
		£50k offered by NOTW for Milly Dowler: Kuttner agrees “that’s normally something I would run by editor, or he or she would raise with me”
		Edis points out email at the time saying the reward for Milly Dowler would “be the decision of the editor” of NOTW.
		Edis goes back to police interview which mentions Kuttner’s 20/04/02 email to Surrey Police.
		During this police interview, Kuttner was read the email he sent Surrey Police.
		Kuttner said of email: “it sounds to me on the face of it…. alerting police about information I had”
		Kuttner said of email presented to him by police “I need to do some research”
		Edis reminds the jury that Kuttner eventually made a prepared statement to police which set out his state of health, but nothing on email
		“All the documentation I’ve seen… suggests to me the information came from Neville Thurlbeck” says Kuttner.
		“I had one concern to assist the police in help finding a missing schoolgirl” says Kuttner to the source of his information on Milly Dowler
		15 minute break
		Back after the break at #hackingtrial. Andrew Edis QC continues with his cross examination of Stuart Kuttner, former Managing Editor of NOTW
		Edis: “What I’m asking you why you didn’t explain to the police when you were interviewed in 2011/12 where this information came from”
		“I believe I did not know” says Kuttner of source of information of Milly Dowler in April 2002
		Edis turns to 20/04/02 email – identical to one sent the day before: except it adds new information of Telford and recruiting agency
		These details of Milly Dowler of recruiting agency and Telford job came from the hacking of her voicemail
		Follow up email by Kuttner specifies the messages on Milly Dowler‘s phone, and offered to provide tape recordings.
		“I clearly did” know there were taped voicemail messages, says Kuttner. He has no recollection of how he knew that.
		“It seems to me” says Kuttner “I probably would have known where the information came from… that it was obtained from Milly’s phone”
		“I’m not disputing that” says Kuttner of knowing at the time that NOTW had Milly Dowler‘s voicemail messages.
		Kuttner doesn’t accept that he must have known “someone illegally intercepted” Milly Dowler‘s phone.
		“If the police had asked where they came from” says Kuttner: “I would have made inquiries”
		“You’re suggesting I was holding back information that is not the case” says Kuttner.
		“Someone on behalf of NOTW must have hacked her phone” says Edis. “I don’t accept that,” says Kuttner.
	Changes to the Milly Dowler Story
		In the 20/04/02 email Kuttner says the NOTW “radically altered” their article and changed Dowler story to allegations of a hoax
		Kuttner doesn’t accept that the changes of the Dowler story would “necessarily” involve the editor of NOTW.
		“Was Harry Scott right in saying that move a story from one part of the paper to another was the editor’s decision?” asks Edis.
		“I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that” says Kuttner of moving a NOTW story needing editor’s input.
		Edis turns to the 14/04/02 NOTW story on Dowler: first two editions identical – appearing on page 9 – setting out hacked voicemail
		“That the message that sent everyone off to Telford” says Edis. “I don’t know that” says Kuttner.
		Edis points out third edition includes the police allegation the messages on Dowler’s phones were left by a hoaxer.
		Correction: the police hoaxer element appears in first and second editions of Dowler story.
		In the third edition, the quote from Dowler’s voicemail has gone.
		“You’d actually done some of the journalism” says Edis. Kuttner accepts he had a conversation with police officer and passed it on.
		Edis goes to a timeline to ask Kuttner a slightly different series of questions.
		Edis says phone hacking of Dowler happened before 5.30 pm on the Friday afternoon of 12/04/02 because of tasking of Epsom research
		Edis says Vanessa Altin and Chris Bucktin were sent to Telford on Friday afternoon, but without informing police.
	Contact with Surry Police
		Edis cites Surrey Police record of Kuttner call: it said Kuttner would call back. Instead Neville Thurlbeck called Surrey Police back.
		Kuttner reconstructs conversation with Thurlbeck. Edis points out Thurlbeck had tasked the phone hacking.
		Kuttner says Thurlbeck did not tell him that he’d got the information through phone hacking.
		Kuttner can “absolutely say Thurlbeck did not…. not, that’s not true. I have no recollection of him saying they hacked the phone”
		Justice Saunders says Thurlbeck called Surrey Police to explain voicemail message.
		“No one thought this was secret” says Edis: “Because it was thought to be in the public interest”
		Edis says all the other hacking activities were secret “except this one. Because you chose to tell the police”
		Kuttner says he absolutely did not know NOTW had kept the Dowler Telford message secret from police for a day.
		Kuttner confirms that Thurlbeck went back to Sergeant Macantee at Surrey Police – there’s a police note confirming this.
		Edis says Thurlbeck told Surrey Police “bit of a lie”: Thurlbeck implies he had accessed Dowler’s voicemail himself – no mention of Mulcaire
		Kuttner says he’s not “certain” Thurlbeck didn’t tell him of hacking Dowler’s voicemail: he’s certain he passed on info to police
		Kuttner says he knew of the impact of missing children because of his involvement in Sarah Payne case.
		“Why would I do that for the sake of the story, page whatever..” says Kuttner. “But for a front page splash?” asks Saunders.
		“I would not more do that than fly to the dark side of the moon” says Kuttner of withholding information from police.
		Edis shows an expenses form for visit to Telford on the Friday afternoon – but Kuttner had said no one told him till Saturday.
		Kuttner says he just signed off the expenses, around £70, without querying the timing: “Not very macro” says Edis.
		Kuttner agrees on the large scale “he looked after the papers money as my own”
		The expenses claim has “Milly Dowler‘s answerphone” as the source of the information for Telford visit.
		“You were active on Milly Dowler case on the Friday afternoon… it was on the news schedule for every day that week” says Edis.
		Edis cites an email to Asst Chief Constable of Surrey police hoping for a meeting, and listing a series of inquiries of police
		One of Kuttner’s inquiries specifies the number of sex offenders living near Milly Dowler: “I don’t recall it but have no reason to doubt”
		Kuttner email cites attempted abductions and missing children in Surrey area and asks “if relevant to Dowler inquiry”
		Kuttner email asks if the Surrey police have new clues, asks about CCTV evidence, and offer reward to find Milly Dowler.
		In 12/04/02 Kuttner email he writes NOTW had “repeatedly” been offering the police a reward.
		Kuttner agrees it’s “likely” the editor Rebebah Brooks was involved in the offer of a reward for info on Milly Dowler.
		“That’s what you were doing on the Friday afternoon” says Edis: “policing the police?” Kuttner says he was trying to assist Surrey Police
		Edis cites a leader written by Kuttner about Milly Dowler written on the 12/04/02 – about abduction by a ‘stranger paedophile’
		Edis points out that at that point on 12/04/02, (false) allegations of a relative being involved in Dowler’s disappearance, wasn’t a factor
		Edis turns to the £2000 cost of Missing Milly story – 5 journalists sent to Telford that Friday.
		Kuttner talks of the expense of people going to Walton on Thames – hotels, etc. But disagrees he knew details of expenses.
		Kuttner: “Where there was a live news story, I’d try to estimate a cost so it wasn’t overlooked…. that’s what I did in this case”
		“As far as I know it didn’t relate to anything specific to Milly Dowler” says Kuttner of weekly reporting of £1000 plus stories in NOTW
		Kuttner denies that reporting of £1000 plus stories to inspect – only to get a general figure for the editor.
		Kuttner confirms that Milly Dowler expenses would have been sent to editor. The Dowler story remained on news list for following week.
		Kuttner says he “might have been” involved in discussions that week beginning in 15/04/02 telling the editor what had happened when away
		Kuttner says he didn’t tell Brooks about voice mails. Saunders asks for clarification: He says “I have no recollection of telling her that”
		Edis goes to the second sending of an email to Surrey police on the Saturday: “a lively day”
		Kuttner does remember resending email: “If you have that recollection, why didn’t you help the police when they asked?” says Edis
		Kuttner confirms that email, sent around 4pm on Friday, was probably before Friday new conference at NOTW, when Dowler story on schedule
		Kuttner tells Justice Saunders: “I was trying to get the co-operation of Surrey Police with a view to accuracy”
		“I would welcome clarification as a matter of urgency” says Kuttner email. He has “no reason to dispute likelihood” of editorial conference
		Brooks was back as editor at this point. Edis says Kuttner had sent an email to Surrey Police confirming voicemails.
		Kuttner says he “no recollection” of reporting back this email to Brooks at editorial conference on the Friday.
		Kuttner resent that email the following Saturday with an additional rider about Mondays recruitment agency and Telford.
		Kuttner says he was checking the “validity” of Telford lead. He doesn’t recall if he reported back to the editor.
		Kuttner doesn’t know if he contacted the police “off his own bat”: “Probably more often than not” he contacted police on instruction.
		“From my experience most editors were interested in the stories in their newspapers” says Kuttner. Break till 2.05 pm
		Edis continues with his cross examination of Kuttner on the Milly Dowler voicemails: he says his first reaction was to tell Surrey police
		Edis talks of admission 62A: Stuart Kuttner called Mark Hancocks – managing director of the recruitment services.
		Hancocks said in a written statement that another NOTW journo was with his mother on the Saturday moming.
		Kuttner agrees he made admission he rang director of recruitment agency on the Saturday morning 13/04/02
		Kuttner has no recollection of if he made that call, why he made that call on that Saturday morning.
	Kuttner questioned on News of the World budgets
		Edis now goes to the NOTW budget process: around the turn of the year Kuttner and NOTW accountant would gather information on ‘commitments’
		Kuttner agrees he would meet with the editor some time February or March to discuss new NOTW budget.
		The editor would then travel to News Corp meeting for editorial budgets for July till end of the year.
		“Sometimes the setting of the budget was quite late on” explains Kuttner. He concedes Editor would decide final splits of budget.
		“I’d done these sums. This is how it seems to work out… I think on the whole the editor would say ‘Fine by me” says Kuttner of NOTW budget
		Kuttner says he would prepare budget ‘aide memoires’ or menus of cuts which the editor would then see.
		Kuttner says NOTW retainers would be discussed at budget meetings with editor: “a pretty substantial expenditure” Kuttner agrees.
		Kuttner says they’d also discuss “increases, taking on someone new”: happy with it being described as “scrutiny”
		Edis says there were only nine retainers at NOTW in six figure sums: “100k quite a lot to pay one single individual person” says Edis
		Kuttner confirms he had said previously that Mulcaire’s cost was only 0.33% of total costs. Edis says higher proportion of weekly variables
		25/01/01 budget document cited by Edis: Kuttner doesn’t know if Brooks would have been involved in the previous budget.
		Kuttner agrees Brooks would have been fully involved in setting 2001-02 budget.
		Kuttner email of 21/01/01 asks for details of “retainers or any new retainers” from NOTW staff.
		Edis reminds Kuttner that the summer of 2001 NOTW went over budget and had reduced revenues.
		Miskiw emails Levine in January 2001: Kuttner says Levine was either features editor or deputy: about invoices by “JJ services” over budget
		18/04/01 email from Brooks about Sophie Wessex story copied to Kuttner: he remembers the story but not the email.
		Kuttner doesn’t remember any concern that anything in Wessex story was outside the law
		31/05/01 email from Kuttner about operating in weekly spending limits and “specific prior approval” by editor for extra costs.
		Kuttner accepts that 2001 was a difficult year financially, based on the documents provided.
	Mulcaire Contracts
		Edis turns to two contracts between Mulcaire and NOTW – one for £7.5k over Bulger story. Kuttner has no contemporary recollection.
		Miskiw emails Brooks over payment on £7.5k – Kuttner replies “noted”.
		Kuttner says if NOTW had “committed” itself to this payment it would be paid. He says he “might” have said “it shouldn’t happen again”
		Brooks writes to Kuttner “You paid 7.5k for Bulger but everyone had it” 23/06/01 “Someone must have asked Miskiw?” says Edis.
		Edis calls this a “little investigation” to a payment to Mulcaire. Kuttner cannot recollect asking Miskiw what Mulcaire had done.
		“The paper had been committed to an excessive some of money for a story” says Kuttner. But he cannot remember any investigation
		Edis cites a 05/07/01 email about budget overspend: “a hefty sum of money” Kuttner agrees – £4.5 million over: “worrying state of affairs”
		Kuttner says £275k spent on Sarah’s Law “was unbudgeted and perhaps unexpected” in 2001.
		Kuttner says the Sarah’s Law costs was “an underestimate by me”.
		Kuttner says he was “quite close” to the Sarah’s Law campaign: costs of a million petitions, travel, briefing Senators from US.
		Jury shown 14/07/01 email from Kuttner “please watch out for ALL spending”: he calls it a “warning shot”
		Edis now cites again a document about tax arrangements for cash payments: he explains Mulcaire traded under three company names
		Kuttner says he didn’t know that then. He also didn’t know Mulcaire’s two aliases: though the addresses were the same in all cases.
		“For all these different names of people getting the money, they all had the same address” says Edis of Mulcaire’s companies.
		Edis says Mulcaire was paid under his own name for Bulger story: he used the same address.
		Edis says Kuttner’s office knew all these billings went to same address: but Kuttner says he doesn’t know they were “conscious of it”
		Edis goes to £92k contract to Mulcaire in 2001: “certainly a commitment to newspaper spending” Kuttner agrees.
		Kuttner says he wasn’t aware of it. “How can you budget?” asks Edis> “It comes back to that macro word I mentioned” says Kuttner.
		“I can recall only one exception… a book deal with David Beckham spread right across the company, and the sum was huge” says Kuttner
		“I don’t think I would have referred this up” says Kuttner of Mulcaire contract. “But this was entirely unbudgeted” says Edis.
		“I worked within budget whether Mulcaire’s fee or William Hague’s column was contained within it” says Kuttner of NOTW costs.
		Edis says, according to Kuttner email, Mulcaire’s un-budgeted cost must have required approval of the editor.
		Kuttner says that an exclusive story would have to reported, and recorded on management budget. But doesn’t see Mulcaire “in that context.”
		Edis goes to early payments to Mulcaire in own name: then to Euro Research: “You approved every one on this page” Kuttner “Yes, certainly”
		“These payments are weekly payments I for the most part improved,” says Kuttner: “are part of 1000s and 1000s other payments”
		Edis goes to the change of company name from Euro Research to Nine Consultancy: Kuttner says he didn’t know this was all Mulcaire.
		12/03/06 Mulcaire’s weekly payment is broken into three smaller payments for a while after 2k limit imposed: Kuttner did not know this.
		Kuttner accepts he had overall scrutiny of what was paid if he wanted: after 2006 all the authorisations from desk heads.
		“A better reflection of the reality” says Kuttner: “these were among 1000s and 1000s of payments… I didn’t appreciate a change.”
		Mulcaire’s payments reverted back to Kuttner in August 2006 – a week after his arrest.
		Kuttner has “no idea” why he started approving Mulcaire’s payments again after his arrest.
		Justice Saunders asks why, with the contractual obligation to Mulcaire: “what’s the point of having a weekly approval if you’re bound to pay
		Kuttner denies that paying Mulcaire after he was arrested was “too keep him quiet”: it was a contractual arrangement
		Edis points out the original agreement with Mulcaire had a two month notice period.
		Edis says Kuttner knew, two days before that payment, that Mulcaire had hacked phones after conversation with Goodman in August 2006
		Edis says that Kuttner also knew another NOTW journalist was suspected of hacking with Mulcaire in August 2006 because “close to Glenn”
		BREAKING: Kuttner admits he didn’t carry out any further investigation into allegations another NOTW journalist was phone hacking in 2006
		Kuttner agrees he could have asked for phone billing for this other NOTW journalist – who cannot be named for legal reasons.
		10 minute break
		Kuttner says he made no connection between Goodman/Mulcaire arrests and the Milly Dowler voice mail messages.
		February 2005 email about payments to Mulcaire “having to stop” cited by Edis. Kuttner doesn’t know why they didn’t stop.
		In Kuttner’s budget menus he proposed cutting 50 percent of Nine Consultancy with Coulson on 24/02/05
		Kuttner denies it was him who decided that Nine Consultancy should not have been cut.
		Justice Saunders asks how Kuttner knew how much to cut from Mulcaire’s company: Kuttner “I’m back to the macro….”
		12/05/05 the decision to keep Mulcaire’s company payment was deleted by Kuttner. It was around this time transcript from Gordon Taylor.
		Edis says Mulcaire was delivering value for money: Kuttner says he has “absolutely no idea of this”. By 2006 additional Alexander payments.
		Edis points out that Alexander payments happened soon after Kuttner was chasing Goodman on costs: Kuttner “Perhaps we had short memories”
		Edis goes to January 2006 budget which includes Mulcaire’s company – with a proposed saving “reduce Nine Consultancy” on 03/03/06
		04/03/06 the ‘Happy Now Grumpy?” email to Mulcaire cited saying he won’t be cut. Mulcaire’s income now £79k.
		Edis says someone must have told NOTW journo to keep Mulcaire payments: Kuttner says desk heads approval limits had been raised.
		Edis says that Kuttner and Coulson were “treating Mulcaire’s payments as an annual income”: Kuttner says he doesn’t follow or remember
	Payments to Police Offices
		Edis turns to the ‘last subject’ in his cross examination of Kuttner.
		Edis cites an “approval for the acquisition of a stolen book” : £750 for Farish. Kuttner says that all he knew was it was ‘Royal Research’
		Edis says that this invoice doesn’t cite any story in the paper. Kuttner says he didn’t query Goodman. Edis says he queried him on others
		Edis cites an email 19/01/03 about a payment Kuttner queried: “I had a heck of a time getting cash payments signed off by Stuart”
		Kuttner says that telling Goodman to “clear off” if he requested to pay a police officer would be “too mild”
		Kuttner says he “always thought it was” illegal to pay police officers. Edis asks if Kuttner would “call the police” if he heard of it.
		Kuttner says he might start a disciplinary if journos paying police. Edis: “or persuade Lord Black to give some training to journalists”
		Kuttner approved a payment on 24/01/03 which Goodman called “deliberately cryptic”: Kuttner has no recollection of this.
		Kuttner is asked whether his personal assistant Beverley Stokes would refer to him: “she might just act on her own view”
		Edis cites Goodman email to Kuttner email to Stokes about “you me and them ending in jail” if police traced payments to officers.
		Edis says Goodman has copied email to Kuttner says that there are “two in uniform” at Clarence House.
		Kuttner recalls that Trident was a police operation. He doesn’t remember this Goodman email.
		Edis cites Goodman email copied to Kuttner about “protected sources…. paper trail leading to… jail”
		“Once again I have no recollection of this email whatsoever” says Kuttner of jail email
		Kuttner agrees that Weatherup email saying he was “having a purge on cash payments” is probably true.
		Goodman says in email to Weatherup that Kuttner knew his source “very well”. But Kuttner has no idea of a protected list.
		Kuttner says he used the term “protected confidential source”: “It’s my expression,” he says.
		Another email says a source “who’s details are known to the newspaper”: Kuttner says he didn’t know the details.
		Saunders intervenes to ask about the PCC’s concern after Goodman arrest about ‘anonymous cash payments”
		Kuttner was not aware of any PCC concern prior to Goodman arrest.
		Kuttner concedes that “one might” use cash payments for corrupt purposes. “I suspect that’s been going on…” Edis: ..since Adam was a lad”
		Kuttner cannot remember Goodman’s assertion that he approved “matey’s weekly payments”: but he did approve Alexander payments to Mulcaire.
		Edis says Mulcaire then given payments per story: the biggest payment was £3k for the ‘Silly Willy” story.
		“I do not recall that, but I wouldn’t challenge that” says Kuttner approving payments for Alexander based on stories and results
		23/02/06 Goodman emails Kuttner about Sandhurst stories and Andy “keeping the service up and running”
		Kuttner says he didn’t know what Goodman meant. He says he didn’t ask. He calls it a “bombardment of emails” from Goodman
	The Prosecution close their cross-examination of Stuart Kuttner
		Edis has finished with documents. “Of all the senior management of NOTW you were the one who had most direct dealings with paying Mulcaire”
		Kuttner agrees that “as far as the documents came to his office” he was involved in paying Mulcaire: “For years” says Edis.
		Kuttner “totally rejects” the accusation that he engineered hiding the payments to Mulcaire.
		Kuttner accepts he knew how much Mulcaire’s companies were being paid. He doesn’t not accept there is no document showing what he did
		“The reason for that is that his activity was criminal phone hacking, and you knew that” says Edis.
		“I have spent a lifetime in newspapers: You have heard, sir, from three character witnesses” says Kuttner
		“Such activity is remote from my concept as it’s possible to be” says Kuttner of phone hacking. “It was your job to know” says Edis.
		“I worked for NI for 24 years. I received the very warmest letter from Mr Rupert Murdoch on my retirement,” says Kuttner
		“I completely reject your suggestion” says Kuttner to Andrew Edis QC.
The Defence of Stuart Kuttner Concludes
	Counsel for Stuart Kuttner asks the last questions for his defence
		Jonathan Caplan QC re-examines his client Kuttner on contracts and weekly contributions payment system.
		Caplan asks Kuttner about saving money on Euro Research: does he actually recollect a conversation with Miskiw on that subject?
		“I believe there was, albeit briefly, such a conversation” Kuttner says of talking to Miskiw about Euro Research.
		“My over-riding concern at NOTW was containing a pretty strong budget” says Kuttner. Recalls Miskiw talking of “better deal” with 1 company
		Kuttner cannot recall whether the deal with Euro research was exclusively for the news desk. Caplan takes him to first contract.
		“Bearing in mind the rivalry between departments” Kuttner says the Miskiw/Mulcaire contract is on behalf of NOTW, for the news desk
		Caplan turns to the 10/08/06 meeting with Kuttner, Brandman and Coulson, alleged to be at the Sun newspaper.
		Kuttner says it would be “extremely unlikely” the meeting was at the Sun. He thinks Henri Brandman’s attendance note could have been wrong.
		Justice Saunders tells the jury “we hope to be continuing at 10 am Monday”: if there’s any delay – and there might – they will be contacted
		So #hackingtrial over until – possibly – 10 am on Monday. The court still sits for some legal argument.

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

Related Articles
Stuart Kuttner Emails to Surrey Police over Milly Dowler
Kuttner Notes of Conversation with Goodman Just After his Arrest
Some of the Mysteries of Phone Hacking – Unlocked
Mulcaire Sanctioned by Spooks – Malign Influence of NI Lawyer on Goodmans Legal Team
Texts to Rebekah Brooks from Tony Blair on the Eve of her Arrest

Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 8 Apr
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 9 Apr
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 10 Apr

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