Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 4 June

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

Wednesday 4 June 2014

Summary
The Summing Up
Justice Saunders QC presents Legal Direction and his Summing Up
Mr Justice Saunders Legal Direction to the Jury
The Judge Complete his Legal Directions
Mr Justice Saunders Summing Up and Review of the Evidence
The Judge Reviews the Evidence
Sentiment and Emotion
Accusations against the Police
The Judge talks about the Defendants
Evidence on Count One
The Milly Dowler Story

The Summing Up
Justice Saunders QC presents Legal Direction and his Summing Up
The last phase of the #hackingtrial – Justice Saunders‘ summing up of 29 weeks of evidence – is about to begin
Mark Bryant Heron has a bit of housekeeping – replacing a badly photographed document with a new transcript.
There is also a correction about a microcassettes of royal voicemails recovered from Goodman’s home and desk
The transcript of Goodman’s conversation with NI lawyer has a few corrections too, Bryant Heron QC tells the jury
Prosecution also admit it would it would be an “abuse of process” to prosecute Goodman for hacking revealed since Carytid.
Goodman was told he would not face further prosecution for phone hacking on 11/05/14
Saunders explains that his job is to tell the jury the law in legal directions – his review of the evidence is different
“Any decisions about the evidence are entirely for you, and you should not be influenced in any way” Saunders tells the jury
“The facts are for you” says Saunders to the jury, explaining the difference between his directions and his review of evidence.
Mr Justice Saunders Legal Direction to the Jury
The Judge Complete his Legal Directions
Saunders reads out the new directions
Saunders explains to the jury that they have to be “sure” of guilt.
On cross admissibility: each count is separate but conspiracy charges require more than one person.
Jury have to consider each charge separately: “but depending on your view… one count may be relevant against another count”
On both counts faced by Brooks on 6 and 7 – perverting the course of justice – they are relevant to each other: happened within a short time
Justice Saunders said there may be similarities, but each count still has to be considered separately
Counts One and Five against Brooks is relevant to the coverup charges to Six and Seven: but that doesn’t work the reverse way.
Because the coverup of material could be for other people, you cannot infer guilt over other counts for Brooks
Saunders says that one and five are also ‘cross admissible” because both allege Brooks “agreed with journalists to use unlawful means”
Saunders explains how both Counts One and Five related: if jury “sure” on hacking that could be considered over corrupt payments
Saunders addresses the issue of paying public officials Count 5: jury have to be sure Brooks knew Bettina Jordan Barber was public officials
Saunders says other emails indicating payments to public officials can be taken into account.
Saunders now explains the now dropped charge, charge 4, of William in a bikini: dropped because it was a public event
Saunders says the payment however for Bikini picture is relevant if “you think the Sun regularly paid public officials… and fair to do so”
Saunders now addresses the two charges against Coulson and Goodman – paying palace cops for phone books.
Counts Two and Three are ‘cross admissible” to each other: and for Coulson relevant to his Count One charge on phone hacking.
Because the Royal Directories could be “assistance in phone hacking” that could be relevant to Count One for Coulson
Saunders addresses the evidence of Hernandez – and prosecution case Hanna was talking about burning material for Brooks
“Nothing Mr Hanna said to Mr Hernandez is relevant to anyone other than Hanna… particularly relevant to Mrs Brooks” says Justice Saunders
Hernandez’s evidence about burning things for Rebekah Brooks is disputed by Hanna – Saunders will set out evidence in more detail later
“Are you sure that he said he burnt things in his garden… and the material came from Brooks? If not, you can ignore this” says Saunders
Saunders explains the way Hernandez’s evidence is “capable of being relevant… whether on July 17th… kept brown bags away from police”
Hernandez is only “part of the evidence” and even if jury conclude Hanna did destroy evidence earlier, it’s not enough to convict
Saunders gives “Lucas Directions” on the issue of “lies”
Prosecution assert Carter ‘lied’ to police about Brooks’ whereabouts when she removed archive boxes: if a mistake, doesn’t help you
“If you are sure she was lying… you must not leap to conclusion she is guilty… people can and do lie for other reasons” says Saunders
Saunders explains why lies might be out of ‘panic’ or a whole host of other reasons: “no innocent explanation for the lie” is what matters
On Brooks statement that she did not know of hacking of Dowler voicemail: if the jury not sure she was lying, not relevant
Not sufficient to prosecution that Brooks just knew about phone hacking, she has to agree to a conspiracy and let it continue.
Once again, Saunders explains that a lie on oath may be taken into account, but not in itself sufficient to conclude guilt
The jury have to conclude that any of these lies are “not for another reason”
On Goodman’s evidence against Coulson on Count One – they will have to assess Goodman’s motives
“You can take into account Goodman’s evidence of Count One, but bear in mind the reasons he may have” says Saunders.
On Dan Evans – he has pleaded guilty to four charges – but the only relevant dates for this trial are from 2005-06 – as conspiracy charge
Evans has pleaded guilty to bribing officials and perverting the course of justice – the latter for a false statement on Kelly Hoppen
Saunders explains Dan Evans deal with police for reduced sentence: “may not be appealing… but important weapon in fight against crime”
Saunders explains how Parliament has approved SOCPA deals: section 71 and 73 – full and partial immunity for co-operating witnesses
Saunders explains the Evans initially hoped for full immunity – there was an incentive to give evidence. Instead he got reduction sentence
“You need to approach the evidence of Dan Evans with caution” says Saunders but it can be taken in account “with care”
“All of the defendants are of good character, except Clive Goodman” and have no criminal convictions explains Saunders.
Saunders says “anyone can lie… but their positive good character can be taken into account…. ‘out of character’ to commit a crime”
“Would they throw that all away by committing offences” asks Saunders.
Saunders points out that Clive Goodman had a ‘good character’ until he pleaded guilty in 2006 – that doesn’t mean he isn’t telling truth
Saunders says Goodman’s admission of further phone hacking can be taking into account.
Saunders now addresses the impact of ‘delay’ and the time lapse since the allege crimes
Saunders reminds the jury that many emails are no longer in existence “millions of them are no longer available”
“A purge in 2010 deleted 3 million emails” says Saunders. The jury can take into account “a large number of emails have gone missing”
Justice Saunders says the deleted emails are more likely to be relevant to Count One rather than Seven and Six
Saunders addresses some emails which were not disclosed by police – some wrongly marked, some only came to light in new searches.
“No one is suggesting that these emails were deliberately withheld” says Saunders of overlooked emails.
Justice Saunders explains the caution evidence and right to remain silent on arrest – but also failure to mention might harm defence
Saunders explains that Kuttner answered all police questions in all interviews except the last one – so cannot be held against him
On the other defendants who made no comment interview, the jury have to be sure they relied on an argument or fact later in court
In certain circumstances the failure to mention things in interview can be taken into account – if versions tailored in court to fit
Saunders explains how these defendants hired very competent lawyers – but they can still draw ‘adverse inferences’ from silence
“Solicitors only advise… they are intelligent people. They unlike the solicitors know what really happened” says Justice Saunders.
“Were they hiding behind that advice. Buying time till they found out the prosecution case?” ask Saunders of no comment interviews.
“You can use that as some support of prosecution evidence against them” says Saunders of no comment interviews
Saunders goes through two no comment interviews with Brooks: prepared statements updated after interview.
In her evidence Brooks said she was no that interested in Milly Dowler because of police suspicions of father – not a stranger paedophile
Prosecution say the failure to mention this in prepared statement is “because it was a later invention”
Defence say that the time lapse is the reason she didn’t mention this element in a prepared statement.
Other than this, the prepared statements by Brooks haven’t changed in further evidence in court.
On Count Five there is also no fact Brooks mentioned in prepared statement which has changed in court
On Counts Six and Seven, Brooks made no prepared statement – prosecution say she should have mentioned arguments now relied on
Defence say early morning raid with young baby and elderly mother explain the no comment interviews by Mr and Mrs Brooks in 2012
Saunders reminds the jury that Charlie has accepted he acted stupidly by hiding his bags – he emailed police after arrest
Justice Saunders makes a comment on the early morning Jubilee Barn raid: they knew about baby and elderly mother.
Saunders says the jury will have to consider whether dawn raid was about abuse of power.
Saunders explains on previous notified arrest, Mr Brooks took advantage of that notification to hide material.
Saunders says police had sufficient grounds to suspect material move. Jury will have to ask whether to pre-notify a subsequent arrest.
Saunders says Brooks knew of these facts – she had been angry – when she was interviewed.
Police say Oxfordshire raid was so early because one suspect left house so early.
“The Brooks were and are outraged by behaviour of police” says Saunders. But are they relying on that as an excuse for no comment interview?
On Coulson’s no comment interview on arrest, he says he offered to talk to police voluntarily
Saunders says it ‘clearly right’ that Coulson has relied on evidence in the witness box he did not mention in interview on Dowler & Blunkett
Goodman also didn’t answer any questions – but made a prepared statement on second interview.
Saunders says that Goodman has only mentioned in court the non police identities of Farish and Anderson, paid for Royal Directories
Goodman said the leaking of his arrest to the press is the reason he gave no comment interviews.
Mark Hanna also gave a no comment interview: Saunders runs through prosecution and defence explanations about this.
Justice Saunders explains that these direction about no comment interviews are “important…. but very difficult to explain”
Justice Saunders talks of expert evidence, and uses cell site expert David Cutts who made errors – but Atwal did not
Saunders address the Danny Boy Broadsword texts from security operatives around Charlie’s Bag events in Chelsea
Prosecution say that the measures adopted went way beyond anything needed to hide some pornography.
Defence say the texts “are simply messing about… with no basis in reality’: Saunders say only applicable if jokes were part of operation
Justice Saunders has now finished with directions: apologises for “very boring… reading them out”
Langdale has a correction to sum of the directions for Coulson – should be voicemail not email. “Thank you for pointing that out” Saunders
Mr Justice Saunders Summing Up and Review of the Evidence
The Judge Reviews the Evidence
Saunders says he has a couple of things to say about his review of the evidence. “My approach different from everyone else”
Saunders role is not to persuade the jury to reach any particular conclusion – don’t be influenced if you think I’m trying to persuade you
Justice Saunders says he will be “selective” in what he reviews but “you view matters mine doesn’t”
Justice says he will “comment… compare and contrast different submission… no more likely to be right than those coming from counsel”
Sentiment and Emotion
“You do not decide the case on sentiment and emotion” says Saunders: “take no account of vitriol on Twitter and other places”
“You may feel sympathy for a number of defendants, Kuttner has been ill, Goodman has been to prison, Carter has not been able to emigrate”
“Mr Coulson has suffered a dramatic fall… the young baby Rebekah Brooks has wanted for many years… Mrs Brooks’ mother”
“You have heard about them because they have some relevance… but you do not decide out of sympathy” says Saunders.
Saunders talks of importance of case over phone hacking, but put aside if irrelevant:
“There are a number of victims who have been hacked simply because they knew a celebrity” says Saunders.
“Everyone is entitled to their privacy, but NOTW violated that privacy” says Saunders
Saunders addresses Caplan’s suggestion that the trial is “politically charge” and they shouldn’t be affected by trimmings.
Saunders explains its only in the Old Bailey because of electronic equipment, and no space in Southwark.
Saunders says either suggestion – that this is important or not important politically – should be ignored either way.
Accusations against the Police
Saunders addresses the accusation that the police were not objective and drew false conclusions: he goes through Macca Ring evidence
Saunders talks of defence claims of incompetence and the “scorched earwig” claim by Clegg that police failed to look for Pizza delivery
Saunders tells Clegg how he mistook Pizza Express for Pizza Hut, and talks about police failure to track down the pizza with garlic bread
“Perhaps they were given a clue” says Saunders of Hanna’s teams’ ability to track down pizza. Not quite so easy for police.
Saunders says they can take police behaviour into account, but they should just focus on evidence.
Saunders tells the jury not to be swayed by “envy” of the defendants success, but they should not be “dazzled” by it either.
Saunders addresses changes in prosecution case – this happens in trials.
“If there have been wild theories ignore them, if there has been glossy packaging cut through it” says Saunders.
Saunders tells the jury to be fair to all sides, defendants, prosecution and witnesses.
“Mr Clegg clearly gets an Oscar for comedy’ says Saunders “but do not misinterpret levity for any suggestion this case is not important”
10 minute break
Saunders apologises to Clegg and his team – they traced the pizza through CCTV evidence: “the earwig is a better point”
The Judge talks about the Defendants
Saunders goes through brief thumbnail portraits of defendants: the “meteoric rise” of Brooks to NOTW editor at age of 30
Saunders talks about Brooks buy ins, Gascoigne, friends with New Labour – appointed to editor by Murdoch and other NI exec
Brooks’ Sarah’s Law campaign mentioned, as is her campaigns against domestic violence and military bullying.
Saunders goes through the character evidence: two testimonies saying Brooks wasn’t the stereotype of tabloid editor.
Sarah Payne described Brooks as “sweet natured” and the NOTW a “force for good”
Saunders goes through Coulson’s “rapid rise through the ranks” as a Fleet Street editor and then Prime Minister’s Press spokesman.
Many character testimonies of Coulson being “self deprecating… ambitious not ruthless”
Saunder runs through the positive character evidence for Coulson from an archdeacon, and his support for a new children’s hospital.
“A mover and shaker but a nice person who never does anything underhand” said one of Coulson’s character witnesses.
Murdo McLennan’s evidence was that Coulson was a “man of great integrity and honour”
Baroness Warsi was also very positive character witness for Coulson: “a team player… a very professional man”
Saunders is now giving a thumbnail sketch of Stuart Kuttner‘s long career – the Profumo Case, the Moors Murders, Norman Scott stories
Saunders explains Kuttner’s medical condition and memory issues: former archibishop of Canterbury spoke in praise of his character
Lord Black formerly of the PCC was a character witness for Kuttner: “a man of integrity who could be trusted… believed in code of conduct”
“Outstanding old fashioned newspaper man, with many contacts” said another character witness for Kuttner: “sound person”
Clive Goodman is not a ‘man of good character’ because he has pleaded guilty of phone hacking in 2006, and more during this case.
Saunders runs through Goodman’s career at NOTW – things went well until Coulson became editor he became “aggressive, combative, and bullying
Goodman described culture of NOTW as “fast bullying and intimidating” and he was demoted.
Coulson denied the atmosphere was bullying, Saunders reminds the jury, just the normal competitive ethos of a news room
Cheryl Carter, Brooks’ PA for 16 years, is given a brief thumbnail sketch by Justice Saunders: she also wrote a Beauty column for the Sun
Various witnesses have described Carter as “adorable…. very warm… keen, cheerful and efficient.”
Saunders says though Charlie Brooks “describes his career in modest terms… it can be considered a great success”
Saunders goes through Charlie’s first meeting with Brooks when she was married, and then a year later when they started dating.
Saunders runs through the various witnesses who talk of Charlie Brooks as “trustworthy and straightforward”
Mark Hanna’s career as soldier and then security expert is now outlined by Saunders: character witnesses talk of his integrity and honesty
Evidence on Count One
Saunders now goes to Count One at the #hackingtrial: “everyone agrees that phone hacking went on at NOTW”
The issue is who knew about hacking at the NOTW: he addresses the prosecution case “the more that happened… must have known”
Saunders says the question is “are you sure they entered an agreement…. is the all important question” rather than amount he tells jury
Saunders cites Goodmans’ assertion of phone hacking at an “industrial scale” at NOTW – he and Evans were only hacking under Coulson
Saunders explains that Miskiw has pleaded guilty – Brooks arranged for him to be returned from New York.
Goodman said that he gave Miskiw names of Royal Aides in early noughties – knew Mulcaire was investigator in 2002
Miskiw was in constant contact with Mulcaire, said Goodman. Miskiw moved to Manchester in 2003, and then told Goodman of hacking.
Justice Saunders says the jury will get a document with all the references to evidence. He has no team – left court to go elsewhere.
Saunders explains to the jury the references to different bundles that he’ll be citing in his summing up
Justice Saunders goes through the liaison between Mulcaire and Goodman over PINs and UVN.
Saunders explains “What’s called rather grandly the Alexander project” and additional hacking of Prince William, Harry and Kate Middleton
Saunders says there is some evidence Thurlbeck and Miskiw hacked during Brooks’ editorship – Dowler and Gilchrist.
Justice Saunders says admissions “are a valuable source of information… agreed documents, so do make good use of them”
Read evidence is accepted as being correct, says Saunders.
Saunders points out that no stories seemed to arise from this hacking of Gilchrist. Thurlbeck worked under Brooks except for suspension
Brooks’ defence say that Milly Dowler story only one provably from hacking, and she was away in Dubai “not a coincidence”
Saunders reminds the jury that Weatherup has pleaded guilty, under Coulson’s editorship.
Mulcaire has pleaded guilty – paid for during editorship of Brooks and Coulson: some hacking accepted, volume in 2002 is in dispute
Saunders reminds the jury of the three principle methods of phone hacking: the Orange Platform has no default pin, others Unique Voicemail
These UVNs had PINs – many providers had a default pin. All you needed was phone number, default pin, and you could hack voicemail
Saunders points out Sven Goran Eriksson had a pay as you go mobile and so no UVN and difficult to hack
UVNs only appear during Coulson’s editorship in Mulcaire’s notebook. They could only be got by “blagging” from service provider.
Saunders reminds the jury of a recording of Mulcaire blagging UVNs
Dan Evans used a double tap system – two calls to trigger voicemails. He did obtain some UVNs according to his evidence.
Goodman used UVNs supplied by Mulcaire and Miskiw
Prosecution case is there is a great deal of phone hacking for available records, but there must have been for periods no records remain
Saunders runs through prosecution evidence of “shining a light” in brief periods. They also claim six year contract evidence of this.
Saunders goes through defence contention phone hacking small till 2004 and even then few of them resulted in stories.
Saunders reminds the jury that most phone hacking wouldn’t result in much of interest: he talks of 26 sample timelines.
Justice Saunders talks of the recordings recovered from Mulcaire audio schedule for voicemails Kate Mosse, Boris Johnson, Andy Grey etc.
Saunders explains the jury have some limited billing data from 2006 arrest: “none available from Mrs Brooks’ time as editor”
Billing records are patchy for about eight months from some of Mulcaire’s phone in 2005-06: and some more from NI hub phone.
The analysis of this call data shows hundreds of victims and “a large amount of phone hacking” from 2005 and 2006
Brooks case is that to extrapolate from surviving records to her editorship is “fallacious”
5,600 taskings of Mulcaire found in his notebooks. More detail on that after lunch – break till 2pm
Back with Justice Saunders‘ summing up in the #hackingtrial – he’s giving his review of Count One: conspiracy to phone hack
Justice Saunders takes the jury to the schedule of Mulcaire taskings contained in the notes of NOTW news editors 2,200 directly tasked
3,400 taskings have no names. 600 taskings are during Rebekah Brooks‘ editorship.
Saunders goes back to Laidlaw analysis of 600 taskings during Rebekah Brooks editorship: 50 are duplicates all Greg or Neville
Some of those taskings go back to 1999 – with Greg or Clive taskings. Some clipped together probably related but not included by police
Some minor police errors – 3 undated notes – 1 appears in wrong place
DC Oskiewiscz looked at the documents to find evidence of phone hacking in the tasking: eg. PIN – category 3
Blagging taskings were called Category 2: Mulcaire notes with no info were Category 1
Of these taskings only 12 were classified Category 3 – this is a subjective exercise on Mulcaire notes says Saunders.
The prosecution say this is an “artificial exercise” – blagging could be used to get hacking info. 200 notes have mobile phone numbers.
Prosecution say what else would need mobile phone numbers for except hacking. Defence say he could be looking for addresses from numbers
Saunders goes through the twelve Mulcaire taskings defence say are the only evidence of hacking: 1 Nicholas Natchpoll linked to Royals
“You may thing members of the Royal Family were of continuing interest to NOTW’ says Saunders.
Saunders says that it’s up to the jury to decide whether a story resulted from hacking is important.
Natalie Pinkham is another hacking detail in Mulcaire notes with PIN
Saunders asks for Milly Dowler tasking on Mulcaire notes to appear on screen – Sally and Robert Dowler are the targets
Saunders analyses Neville tasking to Mulcaire on the Dowlers: PC Elliott is named, who put money on Milly’s phone.
Number 4 of Mulcaire taskings: John Leslie. ‘Do both mobiles’ writes Mulcaire. Maybe of significance to Calum Best evidence says Saunders
Coulson had said “Do his phone” was not a term at NOTW: but to Mulcaire “do” his mobile means something to people
Number 5 of Mulcaire hacking notes under Brooks’ editorship: agent of Burrell “plenty of stories of Paul Burrell” though none direct
Number 6 is Charlotte Church – associated with number of stories “Charlotte is on the Gravy Train” reference to US and Gatwick
Number 7 – Steve Johnson, ex boyfriend of Church’s, has PIN and numbers
Mulcaire hacking notes 8 is Andy Gilchrist: PIN and definitely hacked, but no story resulting in NOTW
No 9 Peter Foster – linked to Cherie Blair – one NOTW story has an email address appears in Mulcaire.
Amanda Holden hacking details noted. Ulrika Johson has a default PIN number. Mandy Mowler has an Orange Platform number.
On the Mulcaire notes during Coulson’s editorship – some duplicates, 450 Miskiw when he moved to Manchester, 73 when he was at Mercury
Saunders talks of the small number of stories for which hacking can be proved is a “relatively small percentage” of stories going to NOTW
Saunder talks about the hacking of Brooks and Coulson’s phones – all relate to a later period when Brooks had gone to the Sun
Goodman’s evidence that Mulcaire hacked Coulson and Brooks in “order to find out the stories they were going with and get some edge”
Saunders talks about Mulcaire note with Brooks and Senior Sun journo – Goodman said was that Mulcaire wanted job there.
There’s no evidence Mulcaire sought job at Sun, or that phone hacking ever went on there.
Saunders talks about Mulcaire doing traffic analysis on private phone bills, prosecution say he really on did phone hacking.
There is evidence that Mulcaire traced paedophiles, and there are invoices for ‘binology’ “a posh name for going through people’s rubbish”
Three taskings relate to tracing people: “how much that was is a matter for you to decide” Saunders tells the jury.
Mulcaire’s Project Emily and Alex related to the two Bulger killers – something happened because otherwise he wouldn’t be paid
Saunders goes to the first contract from 2000 – same contract till the time of his sentencing. Raised from £92k to £102k
Justice Saunders says this form of contract for a private investigator was unique at NOTW – why pay on contract rather than results?
Justice Saunders explains the prosecution case that phone hacking was so laborious that it needed a contract.
Saunders summarises the defence case the contract was a saving.
Brooks says she never knew of contract. Coulson and Kuttner said they knew of contract but not that it was about phone hacking.
Derek Webb and Andy Gadd were also paid as PIs during this period, but paid on results
Kuttner disagreed with other witnesses about needing NGN approval for contract in excess of 50k
There is evidence that Mulcaire’s initial contract was approved by an NI lawyer.
September 2001 is the NI lawyers notes of Mulcaire contract: it has “some relevance” to arrest of Goodman.
NI lawyer was allowed to see prosecution papers on Goodman and Mulcaire – NI lawyer emailed Coulson with details of contract
NI lawyer talks about Greg and other NOTW journos and “entirely safe contract…. neutral term WE used” for Mulcaire.
This suggests “Greg Miskiw was not acting on his own” over Mulcaire contract says Saunders.
Justice Saunders says “you will have to consider that what was being said… having just seen prosecution papers… implicate anyone else”
Saunders explains that though on contract, Mulcaire was on signed off CPRs which would have to go up to Managerial Editors Office
These CPRs were still sent out “automatically” and Mulcaire’s name was known in payment office.
“The issue for you is who it was being kept from” says Saunders of “cockeyed” payment system for someone on a contract.
Saunders explains the defence case that these divergences of opinion over payments to Mulcaire could be “all a muddle”
Saunders goes to the point in 2005 when Mulcaire payments split into three so they were under news desk limits and not needing authorising
Prosecution case is that the budgeting process would have analysed a contract around £100k per annum. Post 2005 docs show budget process
Saunders says NOTW journalist saying payments to Mulcaire “has to stop… I’ve spoken about a million times” is an important document
Saunders points out that someone countermanded instruction to stop paying Mulcaire in 2005: wasn’t left to the news desk to decide it seems
Budget documents suggesting a cut to Mulcaire budget are amended and restored and Mulcaire told “Happy now Grumpy”
“Clearly active consideration was given to Mulcaire’s budget being cut and they weren’t” says Saunders.
Saunders talks of the financial pressure under Brooks’ era – prosecution say she would have been looking at budget cuts too.
Brooks defence is that never saw the Mulcaire contract, though she should have done. A very small part of editorial budget
Defence says Brooks gave huge autonomy to desk heads – “they were running their own business”
Brooks defence is that she was entitled to rely on Stuart Kuttner: under Coulson he says “I was not there to micro manage the budget”
“Even less than the astrologer paid” Saunders reminds the jury Coulson said about Mulcaire payments.
Proposals to cut Mulcaire payments were ‘axed’ but nobody knows who made the decision to reverse them.
Kuttner’s case is that it was unknown to him the news desk were pretending to bring in a reduction by splitting Mulcaire payments to three
“You will have to consider whether Stuart Kuttner was being deceived by the news desk:” says Saunders of proposed reduction for 01/07/05
The splitting of Mulcaire payments came into effect well before proposed budget cuts, Saunders points out.
Saunders says all three defendants on Count One are saying Mulcaire was the responsibility of the desk heads.
Saunders reiterates the prosecution case that editors “must have known” about Mulcaire for legal reasons. Defence says papers not like that
Saunders now addresses the roles of editors and managing editors in overseeing the stories in NOTW
Saunders goes through the back bench, middle bench and front bench teams at the NOTW
Saunders talks of the secret room for exclusive stories – leaks were a problem.
Saunders runs through different evidence on whether the editor would be responsible for moving Milly Dowler story.
Ten minute break
Justice Saunders goes through the various NOTW people who did and didn’t know of Mulcaire: Geoff Sweet wrote an article on him
Saunders says that the new Wimbledon club story was significant enough to send a premiere league reporter to cover it.
On Andy Gadd, the tracing agent, Saunders reminds the jury he was earning £60-70k a year for two day week: he knew Mulcaire.
Goodman knew of Mulcaire before he became aware of phone hacking Justice Saunders tells the jury.
“Who at NOTW knew phone hacking was going on?” asks Saunders – Miskiw, Thurlbeck, Weatherup, Goodman, Evans – perhaps Dolwer journos
Senior NI exec, NI lawyer and Coulson knew about phone hacking after Blunkett explains Justice Saunders.
Brooks and Coulson said they were aware “in general” of phone hacking but not at NOTW.
Kellaway said he had nothing to do with Milly Dowler hacking – his name used as House byline.
Saunders points out that some voicemail messages legally obtained – Sally Anderson, Max Clifford and Blunkett case cited.
Saunders talks about Brooks decision to split news and investigations when she arrived at NOTW – she promoted Miskiw and Thurlbeck.
Saunders runs through the number of people who she employed as editor of NOTW: her evidence is she never knew or approved of hacking
Saunders goes through the sting by Fake Sheikh on Countess Wessex: an exclusive interview in compensation for not running the story
Wessex wrote apologies which were leaked. NOTW ran the story on her to “put the record straight” – after that Brooks emailed staff
A computer problem causes a hiccup in Saunders evidence: “we must have someone who can operate a computer in this building”
Jury retire as Justice Saunders tries to sort his computer out
Justice Saunders‘ summing up has been interrupted earlier by an irritating fly, now by an malfunctioning mouse #scorchedearwig
Saunders cites email from Brooks over Wessex to make sure everything was within the law: Wessex hacked but story had nothing to do with that
Brooks evidence was that journalists would conceal their sources – so would have done if based on phone hacking.
Saunders goes through Sarah’s Law Campaign which Brooks ran, it took a great deal of her attention, and less time for minutiae of stories
Brooks would not know about individual desk head spending unless they overshot their limits: she was responsible for big buy-ins.
Brooks was concerned with the annual budget in May with News Corp – concerned costs were kept under control
Coulson’s account of “these general matters” was the “competition was unhealthy” and some editors old fashioned
“Primary pressure was to create a successful product in a competitive market” Saunders summarises Coulson’s evidence about promotions, DVDs
Murdoch took an interest in the NOTW, particularly political comment; he called regularly every Saturday night
Saunders tells jury they’ll have to consider Coulson’s submission that a phone conversation Goodman suggests he didn’t know about Mulcaire
Saunders points out Goodman explaining original introduction of Mulcaire was before Brooks and Coulson arrived as editors
Coulson’s evidence was that NOTW was like a factory with stories coming in from all kinds of sources: he would press junior journos
In 2004 Coulson said he was aware of Kimberley Quinn phone hacking and produced a story based on it.
Coulson says NOTW worked with police as much as possible. He was aware of phone hacking in general terms in 2002 – did NOT know a crime
Kuttner’s evidence, Saunders repeats, is that he was primarily managerial and didn’t get involved in journalism at NOTW
Saunders cites a Kuttner email “we obey the law” including RIPA “ignorance is not a defence”
Kuttner’s evidence on Goodman – not following chain of command – is gone through.
Kuttner disagreed with Brooks characterisation of his responsibilities: the Editor have overall control. He might have ideas to save money
Kuttner like Brooks says he trusted the desk heads how they spent their money
The Milly Dowler Story
Saunders turns to Milly Dowler: “central to the prosecution case… and you’ll have to give it great thought”
“They must have known when NOTW hacked Milly Dowler‘s phone” says Saunders is the prosecution case. Kuttner told Surrey police.
Brooks was away in Dubai: defence say Mulcaire tasked after she left, so she cannot be party to agreement
Brooks says she only saw third edition of NOTW in which reference to Milly Dowler voicemails had been removed. Only heard in July 2011
Coulson said he took little interest in the Dowler story, and would have assumed voicemail evidence came from police.
Coulson says he didn’t talk to Brooks in Dubai about Dowler, and wouldn’t have drawn attention to it.
Justice Saunders addresses the “basic facts” of the Milly Dowler case.
21/03/02 Dowler disappears at age of 13. Police put money on her mobile phone to access messages. Someone Mulcaire found out
Two stories about Dowler appear in NOTW in March 2002 – ill founded suspicions from police about her father. 26/03/02 court order police
Police did not pick out message of Employment Agency – that was left later, by accident, for woman with similar name, for Telford job
“Clearly someone at the NOTW believed it” says Saunders of Dowler: “no one at that point had reason to doubt it”
5 or 6 people sent to Telford. “It would have been a big story” says Saunders “if someone at NOTW had found her”
Draft Leader by Kuttner about Milly is cc’ed to Brooks, suggesting NOTW still thought Milly might be victim of predatory paedophile.
NOTW were in competition with other papers, including the Sun, to give a reward for Dowler: “initially wanted all the credit”
Further story about Milly Dowler on a paper Brooks edited before she left for Dubai says Saunders.
Break till tomorrow at 10 a.m. – providing no technical hitch.

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 – 30 May
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 2 Jun
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 3 Jun

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

Advertisements

One thought on “Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 4 June

  1. Pingback: As Justice Saunders Sums Up: Review the Prosecution and Defence Cases | 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