Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 27 May

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

Tuesday 27 May 2014

Summary
Clive Goodman’s Closing Statement
David Spens QC presents the Closing Statement for Clive Goodman
Green Books and Royal Directories
Counts 2 and 3
Goodman’s Case joined to Hacking Charges
Goodman’s treatment at The News of the World
The evidence of Coulson and Kutner
Goodman’s evidence against Coulson
The Cover-Up

Clive Goodman’s Closing Statement
David Spens QC presents the Closing Statement for Clive Goodman
Back at the Old Bailey for the last couple of weeks at the #hackingtrial before the jury retire. Wonder if I’ll miss this place.
Justice Saunders explains to the jury David Spens QC will be giving his closing speech for Goodman and will run into lunch
“It’s raining outside anyway” says Justice Saunders about the jury’s abbreviated lunchtime
David Spens QC reminds the jury that they’ve spent more than half a year in this courtroom.
Spens will break down his closing address into four sections, including hacking, coverup and Rogue Reporter defence
Spens lists what he thinks are the most relevant documents to his client, Clive Goodman: he includes originals of the Green Book
Green Books and Royal Directories
Back up in the main court because Spens isn’t mic’ed up properly. He’s going through a version of the Green Book with 21 mobile numbers
The Royal Pilot and Racing Advisor is included in this “posher version of the internal telephone directory”
“None of the people whose mobile numbers appear in this book have been hacked,” says Spens. “None of them”
Spens talks about the directories have “low level information…much of it in the public domain, publicly available” #hackingtrial
“The Unforgettable Michael Peat told you that the sale of the directories was ‘a long standing practice'” Spens tells the jury
“There was an almost total absence of security surrounding these Green Books,” says Spens “information… unimportant, too trivial”
Spens says his client Goodman found the Green Books valuable so he could contact people, and see who had been promoted.
Spens reminds the jury that when the police found these directories in Goodman’s possession in 2006 they didn’t investigate “not a big deal”
Of the Internal Telephone Directories, Spens says Goodman could contact the man who raised the flag to half mast, or stolen silver story
Spens calls these ITDs “extremely low level information”: their loss didn’t even have to be reported.
“No new safeguards were put in place to prevent any re-occurence” says Spens after directories seized by police in 2006
Counts 2 and 3
Spens says the jury have to answer two questions on Counts 2 and 3 against Goodman
“Am I sure Mr Goodman agreed to buy this directory from a police officer?” Spens says is the first question they have to answer.
Spens reminds the jury that his client Goodman wrote that he bought them from police officers, but that was only to guarantee payment
“The source would get paid more quickly…. more likely to come back with more stories” says Spens of exaggerating “important of source.”
Spens goes back to one of the oft-visited Goodman to Coulson emails about paying a palace cop “handy in the Peat affair tale”
“He was selling the need for the source to be paid to the editor” says Spens of Goodman’s explanation for this email.
Spens now turns to the Count 3 email – which concerns an ITD rather than a Green Book. Again, “exaggerating a source… for payment”
“It’s important to be aware that the only evidence that the Green Book acquired by a police officer is this email” says Spens of Count 2
Payment for the Green Book was on the “Farish account” – a newspaper executive according to Goodman.
Spens points out that a Sun journalist paid another journalist for a story according to evidence.
Spens says there are “three reasons” you can tell Goodman’s email is “not true” in regard to “St James’ Palace Policeman”
Spens says there’s never been a report of St James Palace Green Book going missing – and they only had one edition.
A member of The Lord Chamberlain’s office said no Green Book had ever gone missing.
Justice Saunders clarifies the evidence – one Green Book was issued to the St James’ Palace Police Office.
“He was inflating his source… these two points together form a powerful point to counteract the prosecution” says Spens.
Spens’ third point derives from an email from an NI lawyer about “entirely safe” Mulcaire contract using “neutral terms”
Edis had called this NI lawyer’s email a “code” for “something illegal” Spens reminds the jury.
Spens points out other emails in code such as “we know it’s a 100 percent fact”: when committing a crime “you can’t broadcast it”
Turning this around, says Spens “and following the logic” if a crime is actually mentioned in an email it probably didn’t happen.
“If Mr Goodman had acquired these books from police officers he wouldn’t be saying this” says Spens. “The other side of the coin”
Spens denies this is “just a clever lawyer’s point”
Spens talks about Goodman’s habit of “exaggeration” and cites an email that says they could all end up “wearing concrete wellies”
Spens turns to the point that payments to Farish and Anderson tending to relate to stories about the Palace Police.
Only 8% or “1 in 12” of the payments to Anderson were about Royal Police Officers. 1 in 4 to Farish.
Spens now “turns the telescope around” – 93% Anderson stories NOT about Royal Police, 73% of Farish NOT about Royal Police.
Spens: “Massive police efforts have gone to find a police officer responsible for corrupt payments… no such police officer has been found”
“Not stone has been left unturned” says Spens of fruitless Met investigations: an ESDA test on a 99 Green Book: fingerprints on 1993 ITD.
Spens explains the forensic evidence did not find a suspect – and the 14 books passed through many hands, with112 unidentified fingerprints
60 police officers were investigated – a massive spreadsheet was created, and none were identified. 2001-2007 538 officer ID’ed
Half those 500 employees were fingerprinted – no matches found. Bank accounts, email addresses, notebooks, couldn’t link to Goodman.
Spens says email reference in October 2005 to “police contact” just means “a source of information about the police”
Spens addresses Goodman’s no comment interview on arrest in 2011. He denies prosecution case he was fitting story to evidence.
Spens says that Goodman was only silent because of legal advice, and the fact his arrest in 2012 had been leaked to Guardian they day before
Justice Saunders asks for a legible copy of Goodman’s 2011 prepared statement.
“Are you going to hold it against him” Spens asks the jury of Goodman’s arrest and media leaks: “that he was silent?”
“His name would have been mud within his profession” says Spens of Goodman talking to police on his arrest in 2012.
Spens addresses the second question on Counts 2 and 3: “Am I sure the misconduct of police officer sufficiently serious?”
“Is it an abuse of the public’s trust?” Spens asks jury: “It’s you…. who set the standard. It’s entirely your decision.”
Spens invites the jury to consider Counts 2 and 3 “a storm in a teacup”
Spens says that while Weeting never found a corrupt palace officer “they found one in their midst” with DC Cripps, leaking to Amelia Hill
Spens points out that DC Cripps was never prosecuted for leaking to Guardian because it wasn’t considered in public interest.
Spens asks the jury to consider whether leaking the internal directories is “worse than leaking operational information” about Weeting?
Spens talks of Weeting Officer DC Cripps and the Guardian’s Amelia Hill having a “relationship” but not exchanging money.
Spens”Is an officer less untrustworthy because he did it in the course of a relationship, or more untrustworthy because he did it for money”
Spens speculates the Guardian leaks put the “investigation at risk” and speculates “Mr Goodman could have fled the country for Panama”
“What harm was done by leaking these directories” ask Spens: “Precisely none, zero…. None endangered security of Royal Household”
Justice Saunders tells the jury #hackingtrial closing speeches will finish next Tuesday, and he’ll finish his summing up at the end of week.
Goodman’s Case joined to Hacking Charges
Spens says the case against Goodman would have been easier if it hadn’t been joined to the hacking charges others face.
Spens goes through Goodman’s previous arrest, charging, conviction and four month sentence for phone hacking in 2006
Spens says that Goodman was arrested on 08/07/11 “having lost his career… and falsely stigmatised as a rogue reporter”
“That cost him his job at the Daily Star” says Spens of Goodman’s arrest: he was charged 18 months later
BREAKING: Spens tells the #hackingtrial jury how in June 2013 ‘hacking conspiracy’ was joined to Counts 2 and 3 against Goodman and Coulson
Spens explains how Goodman joining to #hackingtrial means that he now has to “come to give evidence on Coulson” and appeared before Coulson
Spens points out that Goodman has only given evidence against Coulson on phone hacking, not against Brooks or Kuttner.
Spens reminds the jury that Goodman says “he has not hostile feeling towards Mr Coulson now…. had no choice but give evidence… Painful”
Spens talks of Goodman’s confession of hacking “Kate Middleton, Prince William and Prince Harry” as a “shameful thing to do”
Spens talks about “high standards in journalism” and “right to privacy”: Goodman said he’s “not the slightest bit proud” of falling below it
Spens says Goodman is not looking for sympathy, but to be judged on the evidence.
“You may think the prosecution case against Mr Coulson is strong without Mr Goodman’s case” says Spens “just one line of evidence”
“You can convict him even if you reject Mr Goodman’s evidence” says Spens of Coulson.
Spens says contradictory evidence comes down to credibility “do you believe him or not”
Spens turns to the “most relevant documents” on phone hacking, and lists a dozen or so page numbers in the jury Goodman bundle.
Spens talks about Langdale’s cross examination of Goodman “the purpose of it was to show Mr Goodman was a liar”
The cross examination revealed that Goodman had hacked Kate Middleton, and the Royal Princes.
Before he got ill, Goodman was asked by Langdale if he hacked anyone else than the previous admissions: “I can’t remember” said Goodman
Spens calls Goodman’s “I can’t remember” a white lie because he thought he could still be convicted on 30/03/14
BREAKING: By the time of Goodman’s return on 14/05/14, he had been told he wouldn’t be convicted for further hacking admissions (11/05/14)
Spens talks about the suggestion from Langdale that Goodman had been pocketing some of his “cash payments”
A previous NOTW witness, Morgan, had said that Goodman was not particularly avid with cash payments.
Spens addresses the banking evidence of a period when Goodman didn’t withdraw cash “an inference he was getting money elsewhere”
“What was being lined up… was the suggestion he had… been putting money in his own pocket” says Spens of evidence against Goodman
Spens points out that Goodman cash payments actually decreased over a two year period by £25k. “You actually see a drop”
Spens goes through Goodman’s explanation of not using his ATM: a legacy, a change in lifestyle with child, and use of cashback in supermkts
“Sometimes in cross-examining, in trying to ruin a defendant’s credibility, it has the opposite effect” says Spens of Langdale’s attack
Spens addresses the inference that Goodman’s allegations of bullying at NOTW was an “invention” because wasn’t part of dismissal appeal
Spens explains that Goodman’s appeal about unfair dismissal was all about being blamed as the rogue reporter.
Spens points out that Goodman’s cross examination by Coulson’s QC lasted 3.5 days “Did it shake Mr Goodman?”
“Was the unintended consequence of Goodman’s cross examination to strengthen the case against Mr Coulson?” Spens asks the jury.
“Mr Goodman has been open and fair” says Spens: “willing to provide police with bank records, waived legal professional privilege”
Spens explains the documents revealed through the waiving of Goodman’s legal privilege so “nothing has been hidden”
BREAKING: Spens says Goodman recalled a lot while other defendants have been struck down “by a collective amnesia over last few years”
Spens points out that he never accused Coulson of knowing about some of his hacking, and how some emails had nothing to do with it.
Spens talks about the other ways Goodman “has assisted Mr Coulson” – especially over the acquisition of the Royal Green Books.
As an example of Goodman “favouring” Coulson, Spens cites the “Health info scammed from Helen Asprey” – hid hacking reference from Coulson
A second example of Goodman’s evidence favouring Coulson is a NOTW email about a story obtained by lip reading, not phone hacking
Another Chelsy Davies story wasn’t hacking based. All but one of Goodman’s capture of emails in 2006 were hacking based.
24/01/03 Miskiw tasking of Mulcaire over Michael Peat, cited by Spens. Prosecution claim Peat contact details obtained from Green Book.
Spens says it’s “incorrect” the “Green Book was used for phone hacking”: Goodman already had Peat’s mobile number from meeting with Brooks
Sir Michael Peat confirm “he may have” given Goodman his mobile number at a meeting, Spens reminds the jury.
Spens points out that Miskiw’s tasking of Mulcaire contains no mobile number. Two post codes in Mulcaire notes, only one in Green Book.
The Green Book also contains the Peat’s home number as 0207 not 0208 as in what Spens calls the “wonky” Mulcaire notes.
“No evidence that this Green Book was used, or Goodman involved in this tasking” says Spen: “This favours Coulson….”
Spens says he want to “shine a spotlight on Coulson, Kuttner” NI Lawyer, Henri Brandman and NI exect.
Goodman’s treatment at The News of the World
Spens talks about Coulson’s qualities but says “he’s not sentimental either” referring to the sacking of Sean Hoare.
“You may think Coulson equally ruthless in his pursuit of stories” hiring other exec “no hesitation in publishing Home Secretary’s affair”
“Mr Coulson take no prisoners” says Spens, and mentions how he didn’t mention Thurlbeck’s hacking in 2004 during 2006 investigation
“You may think he was paying lip service to adherence to PCC code” says Spens of Coulson: “because he didn’t care less how stories obtained”
At a Carluccio’s dinner with Goodman, NI Lawyer told him Coulson was concerned with Goodman, police and “himself”
“You can conclude his main instinct was self preservation” says Spens of Coulson surviving in the “ruthless tabloid world”
BREAKING: Spens calls Coulson’s claim of a “duty of care” towards Goodman was “a sham, a charade” to find out what was going on with police
Spens talks of Kuttner “blackening Mr Goodman… as if he was responsible for the NOTW downfall”
Spens reiterates that Goodman never spoke to Kuttner about “hacking” : and of his “convenient memory” forgetting praise of Royal Reporter.
Spens reminds the jury that Kuttner said he wanted Goodman dismissed in 2006 but couldn’t remember doing anything about it.
25/01/11 email by NI lawyer cited by Spens, concerning further payments to Mulcaire to keep him “non hostile” until sentencing next day
“What does that tell you?” says Spens of NI lawyer’s email. He reminds jury Coulson said this top lawyer did not know phone hacking law.
Goodman complain after 22/12/06 meeting with NI Lawyer of his “threatening behaviour” says Spens, taking jury to Goodman’s email
Spens corrects the date of this email 12/12/06: “crude carrot and stick” described by Goodman and “shocking” attendance of NI lawyer.
“I felt more threatened” says Goodman in email about NI lawyer “than by the prosecution”
Of Henri Brandman Spens tells the jury: “make no mistake about it” Goodman was his client.
BREAKING: Spens says that Goodman’s lawyer Brandman leaking material to NI lawyer “was not something we should accept”
The evidence of Coulson and Kutner
“Mr Coulson and Mr Kuttner have been up to no good in this case, and have deliberately misled you about hacking” says Spens to #hackingtrial
Spens says Coulson and Kuttner misled jury about which budget Mulcaire’s Alexander payments came out of and Kuttner’s notes.
Spens points out Alexander payments to Mulcaire went through the editorial budget, rather than news desk budget Goodman working to.
Spens reminds jury that Goodman said news desk would have been furious if – paying through them – they’d found out about Alexander project
Spens goes through Coulson’s evidence on Alexander payments: he didn’t ask any questions about source and paid £500 retainer per week
“Mr Coulson already knew Mulcaire was on a retainer” suggests Spens of the approval of Alexander Project.
“I don’t why it went through the editorial management budget” said Coulson in evidence: “It should have gone through… news desk”
Kuttner had “no recollection” either way if Coulson approved budget. Goodman “might have had historical authority” to approve himself
“That simply can’t be true” says Spens. “Kuttner… knew Goodman’s CPRs had to go through news desk and be approved by desk head”
Spens goes through 15 emails that show Goodman couldn’t pay sources without approval
“It’s all delightfully vague” says Spens of Coulson and Kuttner approval of the Alexander Project with Mulcaire.
Spens says that Coulson’s case is that from 10//08/06 till the end of the year “he was doing his very best for Mr Goodman”
Coulson’s case, says Spens, is that it was a briefing note at the end of 2006 that changed his attitude towards his arrested Royal reporter
Coulson had said “had I been told earlier” than the end of Dec 2006 “I wouldn’t have treated him so nicely”.
Spens points out that Kuttner made a note around 10/08/06 which would make a “complete mockery” of Coulson’s version of events.
Spens points out that Kuttner of debriefing Goodman in 10/08/06 after his arrest mentions that “Andy knew”
Two big legal meeting followed on the 10 and 11/08/06 with Brandman and other lawyers: “told Andy this at start” Goodman comment marked up
Kuttner said “I don’t remember telling Mr Coulson at any point” of Goodman’s statement that “Andy knew”
Spens reminds the jury of the “importance of what Mr Goodman was saying” to NOTW after his arrest.
“Was it a convenient loss of memory by Mr Kuttner” asks Spens of Goodman info. Coulson said “I don’t remember” either.
On these two August 2006 legal meetings, Coulson cannot remember if he stayed long enough or crossed over with Kuttner.
Spens emphasises that Kuttner had marked his notes about Goodman saying “Andy knew”
“Do they remind you of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?” says Spens of Coulson and Kuttner in 2006
“This is skullduggery…. a crafty attempt to deceive you” says Spens of Coulson and Kuttner’s evidence.
Spens tells the jury the line of communication between Goodman and Coulson was not “blurred but, you may think, extremely clear and direct”
Spens goes through an email from a NOTW editor making it ‘crystal clear” Goodman should go through news desk
Spens points out over 8 months of Alexander Project emails, Coulson never once tells Goodman to go through the news desk with hacked stories
“Mr Coulson has to explain what’s written on the face of the page” says Spens of “absolutely know it to be true”
Break till 2pm
Spens cites Goodman email to Coulson: “source on the retainer… we absolutely know it to be true” meaning “we share knowledge of this fact”
Very tired after working all weekend: apologies for overuse of BREAKING tag – maybe replace with INTERESTING
Back after lunch and lots of coffee at #hackingtrial – thanks for suggested replacements for ‘breaking’: perhaps in my case ‘cracking’
Goodman’s evidence against Coulson
David Spens QC tackles the suggestion his client Goodman falsely implicated Coulson because he was “resentful and revengeful”
Spens “tests” the proposition Goodman was “resentful” towards Coulson over his demotion at NOTW.
Spens asks of Goodman: “within 24 hours of leaving police station he was prepared to concoct an entirely false story about Coulson?”
Spens reminds the jury that Goodman downloaded emails soon after this.
Spens says the resentment suggestion is “farcical, doesn’t hold water”
On Goodman’s revenge Spens asks “when did he become bitter?” He suggest this was after his dismissal in February 2007
This sacking was long after Goodman had named Coulson as involved in hacking, explains Spens.
Spens describes the NI internal disciplinary hearing with Myler and Cloke as a ‘Kangaroo Court…. a complete sham, utter charade”
Spens says no witnesses were called to NI internal hearing to test Goodman’s allegations against other NOTW staff.
Spens cites a document that hasn’t been before the jury yet. “We’ll come back to that after the break” he says
10/07/07 email from Goodman to employment lawyer Tony Valento when the severance payment: “keeping rein on Old Testament vengeance”
Spens says Coulson’s name does not appear in this email, and the Old Testament Vengeance was directed at NI, not Coulson.
Spens also points out this email was 11 months after Goodman mentioned Coulson’s involvement in Alexander project.
Spen suggests that Justice Saunders may well direct the jury to treat Goodman’s evidence with caution.
Spens tells the jury they should weigh Goodman’s evidence with other independent evidence: e.g. Neville Thurlbeck’s hacking in 2004
“The core of News of the World was already rotten” says Spens of hacking apart from Goodman: he also cites Dan Evans who Goodman never met
Other supporting evidence for Goodman cited by Spens are emails, payments schedules.
Spens tells the jury it will “music to your ears” that he’ll address the issue of bullying briefly
Spens explains that bullying can be psychological and implicit: “the threat of the loss of your job can be there all the time”
“A bullying culture built up under Coulson” says Spens: Editor and another NOTW exec “like two lurchers after the same hare”
Spen mentions the evidence of Coulson’s PA “Belinda Sharrier” who describing bullying “to belittle”
Spens says the jury don’t have to resolve the issue of bullying at NOTW.
Spens talks of the “pressures” on Goodman circa Autumn 2005; told to work to the news desk after 19 years as “distinguished Royal journalist
“Too comfortable… too old to keep in touch with Young Royals?” asks Spens of Goodman attending night clubs.
Goodman’s QC goes through the various emails in 2005 apparently upbraiding the ex NOTW Royal Editor
03/02/06 Goodman email to Coulson cited “a few weeks ago you asked me to find new ways of getting into the Young Royals
“What more could he do?” asks Spens of Coulson pressure on Goodman: “he was already hacking the Young Royals”
Spens cites another email about the Alexander project cited: NOTW journalist asks “can I have a good reason why you weren’t in conference?”
“The hacking of Jamie Lowther Pinkerton happened the very next day” points of Spens of meeting with Coulson over Alexander Project
28/10/05 email “That new project is starting to get results” writes Goodman: “Pop in” says Coulson: Goodman says 6 stories from that hacking
Spens turns to the termination of Alexander retainer: now payment by results “Even less reason to contact Mr Coulson” says David Spens QC
Harry and Unknown Woman, heat exhaustion at Prince William military exercise are just two of NOTW stories produced from hacking, says Spens
The Cover-Up
Spens then turns to the third and last part of his closing speech to the jury for Clive Goodman – the cover-up.
Spens says the coverup is important because it explains the change in Goodman’s mitigation plea and “truth was being suppressed”
“If you find Mr Coulson guilty of the coverup” says Spens “then this is evidence of his guilt”
“He was being groomed to be the fall guy” says Spens of offers from Coulson to Goodman that “he would still have a job” after arrest.
Spens says that NI still had a problem “how till keep Mr Goodman in line until he was sentenced”
“The shocking but effective strategy of carrot and stick” says Spens of NI strategy at that time “to keep Mr Goodman silent”
“He led Goodman to believe this slim thread of having a job” says Spens
Spens says Goodman was “discarded” after imprisonment and “the News of the World ship steamed on without him”
Email evidence suggests Goodman told Brandman about extensive hacking at NOTW and that Coulson knew about it.
Goodman believe that Brandman’s question whether he was the “lone wolf” was the beginning of this strategy.
“Was it a friendly arm put round his shoulder by Mr Kuttner, or a fact finding exercise?” asks Spens of Kuttner meeting Goodman after police
A few days later Goodman was so worried by this “lone wolf” suggestion, he downloaded incriminatory emails the day after his arrest.
Spens goes through the conversation between Coulson and Goodman after arrest when the NOTW reporter was suspended on full pay.
11/08/06 Goodman goes back to the Internet Cafe to download more evidence from his News Int email account.
Spens goes back over Kuttner’s notes on debriefing Goodman: Kuttner said the allegation that Coulson knew was marked up “as important to me”
“It’s inconceivable Mr Kuttner did not tell Mr Coulson… the content of that note” says Spens; “that explains Coulson’s conduct after that”
14/08/06 Cafe Rouge meeting with Coulson and Goodman now explored with Spens, with the bad recording and ‘almost contemporaneous’ document
At that Cafe Roug meeting, Goodman says Coulson could return to the NOTW if he said “he acted alone…. and went off the reservation”
“This was a ‘carrot'” says Spens of this job offer.
Spens address Langdale’s point that he could have got an ‘admission’ from Coulson at this point. Goodman said he would have lost everything
Spens uses the expression “keeping Goodman inside the tent” and explains LBJ’s ‘pissing’ metaphor about the head of the FBI to jury.
“It worked” says Spens of the job offer: “He was loyal. He was vulnerable…. little prospect of further employment… sister on paper”
“He who pays the piper plays the tune” says Spens, using yet another metaphor to explain the inducements to Goodman to keep silent.
Spens goes back over the Oct/Nov proofs of evidence implicating Coulson in hacking: “all consistent with what he said back in August” 2006
“The was no misunderstanding of what Mulcaire was producing” wrote Goodman in 2006 legal document: “I sometimes had to provide transcripts”
“Not good” writes NI lawyer of Goodman’s reluctance to share prosecution papers in 2006.
“He was digging in his toes, not being compliant, that’s why you find ‘not good’ and ‘difficult'” Spens on NI lawyer’s reaction to Goodman
Spens points out that Coulson’s knowledge of Alexander payments, Mulcaire’s other handlers, left out of Goodman’s final proof of evidence
The 27 page transcript of the tape recorded meeting at Carluccio’s between Goodman and NI lawyer, adduced by Spens.
“How are things back at the ranch?” asks Goodman. NI Lawyer mentions “two issues”: Coulson only knew source says lawyer
“I personally wouldn’t say that” responds Goodman. Spens suggests this exchange means Coulson knew allegations
“Mr Coulson knew long before the end of December” argues Spens of Goodman allegations, based on this tape recorded conversation.
“The carrot and stick strategy is working” says Spens of Goodman’s suggestion he won’t name Coulson at this point in 2006
Coulson says “are we on speakerphone” when rung by Goodman: “he smelled a rat” says Spens, suspecting he was being recorded.
“Is he going to bite the hand that feeds him?” Spens asks the jury about Goodman trying to get a taped admission from Coulson a this point
Spens describes Goodman as “a ticking bomb… for those who knew what had really gone on” around the time of his sentencing for hacking
27/11/06 Coulson writes to NI exec “will my statement cause a problem with Clive?” Goodman could draft his statement in “problematic way”
Spens goes through response to Coulson statement from NOTW exec “concerned about what Mr Goodman could say… before final sentencing”
Coulson sends another draft statement to NI exec. One minute later statement changed to include “putting in place measures” to stop hacking
15 minute break
Spens goes back to document the jury haven’t had seen before which Langdale cross examined on 03/06/07
Goodman to his employment solicitor about Coulson’s appointment to Cameron’s press supremo “very hard for NI to get off the hook”
Though Goodman mentions the “whiff of scandal” around Cameron’s appointment – but Spens says the target clearly NI not Coulson.
3.15 pm on the day Goodman pleaded guilty, Coulson emailed Brooks “as it is all going so well today”
Coulson told the jury it was a “disastrous day” but Spens said “he writes what he means”
“Not only had he broken the PCC code, but committed a punishable offence” says Coulson of Goodman.
“He had pleaded guilty. Why hadn’t Mr Coulson dismissed him?” asks Spens of Coulson: “He couldn’t take the risk” says Spens.
Spens then goes through the emails about Goodman “straying off the preferred line” with probation officer.
CORRECTION: previous email is from NI lawyer to Coulson
“What makes you think that?” asks Coulson of Goodman “straying off the preferred line”: NI lawyer says chat with Henri Brandman
Coulson then suggests reminding Goodman of antagonism towards NOTW from Probation Service after Sarah’s Law Campaign.
“Why would he write that?” asks Coulson of probation service warning, unless it was to put Goodman off talking to them too much
11/12/06 email about Goodman’s plea for mitigation: 12/12/06 Kelsey Fry and Brandman discuss with him mitigation and probation.
Though NI lawyer had been asked not to come to earlier meeting, NI lawyer turned up at Goodman’s legal meeting again.
It was agreed with Goodman that NI lawyer could come later: he came lawyer, and reminded Goodman to “toe the line” says Spens.
Spens stresses the credibility of Goodman’s account through another email saying he felt more “threatened” by NI lawyer than prosecution
28/12/06 Goodman meets probation service. Report produced on 03/01/07 with mentions of demotion, bullying and ‘tacit agreement’ over hacking
“The newspaper facilitated it at a higher level” wrote the Probation Officer; Spens says Goodman telling someone in authority about Coulson
Questions from the PCC 03/01/07: “Did others know?” Spens says Coulson and NI exec knew about Blunkett hacking by Thurlbeck back in 2004
Spens says Goodman so distrusted his lawyer Henri Goodman before sentencing, he didn’t tell him what he’d admitted to Probation Office.
Coulson emails NI exec on 14/11/07 with his resignation letter: “Although I knew nothing of Clive’s illegal actions they were wrong…”
Spens notes this line about “not knowing” about Goodman in Coulson’s resignation letter was removed because it was a “whopping lie”
Spens says Coulson left Goodman “under the impression… there was a glimmer of hope he could come back”
“Why didn’t he do the decent thing and have a word with him” asks Spens of Coulson not informing Goodman about not having a job.
Spens says Goodman wasn’t told about his sacking in advance so “he wouldn’t let the cat out of the bag” over wider hacking.
“Extremely helpful if NOTW should see this document” writes Henri Brandman to Goodman about his probation report
“He had kept his side of the bargain” says Spens of Goodman not mentioning wider hacking in his mitigation plea “in this court” in 2007
“NOTW and NI probably thought that when Goodman went to prison that would be the end of the matter” says Spens to #hackingtrial jury
“They dismissed him by letter on 05/02/07 and on the 08/02/07 paid him his dismissal” says Spens.
On 22/02/07 “Colin Myler wrote to the PCC with the mythical rogue reporter line” says Spens. Coulson used this line knowing it wasn’t true
Spens goes through Goodman’s evidence to his NI appeal for dismissal: NI lawyer said I could come back if I didn’t implicate others on NOTW
Spens says Colin Myler “propagated the myth” of the lone wolf, rogue reporter.
After threats of public tribunal, Goodman contacted by NI’s Don Chapman – NI settled for £140k with gagging order
BREAKING: Goodman’s final settlement with NI had a gagging clause that could only be broken in exceptional circumstances of criminal case
“The Jury might not have heard of the truth except for his Lordship’s decision to put counts 1, 2 and 3 together” says Spens of coverup.
Spens “If you conclude Mr Goodman is telling you the truth about hacking and coverup, it’s more likely he’s telling you truth of counts 2&3”
Spens closes his case for Goodman – back tomorrow at 10 am with Langdale for Coulson.

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

Related Articles
The Route to Verdict: Justice Saunders Directions to the Hacking Trial Jury
Those Rogue Reporter Emails
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

Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 19 May
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 20 May
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 21 May

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

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 27 May

  1. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 28 May | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  2. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 29 May | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  3. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 30 May | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  4. Pingback: Law and Media Round Up – 2 June 2014 | Inforrm's Blog

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