tip off

Half-time show: the prosecution’s case on phone hacking

The prosecution has outlined its case against former News of the World executives, and the defence will start next week. Journalist Rodney Tiffen reports from London for Inside Story.

It is half time at the long-running trial of former Murdoch executives Rebekah Brooks (pictured) and Andy Coulson, and five others, on charges of phone hacking, bribery and destroying evidence. The long-anticipated trial finally began on October 28 last year, and the prosecution has now finished its case, with the defence to begin its on February 17. The judge has told the jury that they will be retiring to decide their verdict not later than May 11.

Further trials will follow, each of them likely to involve several defendants, some of whom will face multiple charges. It is not yet clear how many there will be, but around 30 others have been charged. It’s possible that the verdicts in the current trial could expedite future proceedings; if these seven defendants are all found guilty, for example, some others may change their pleas to guilty.

It is difficult for all but the most determined observers to keep track of a long-running court case like this one. The day’s stories flow in different directions depending on which witnesses are testifying, and who is questioning them. British journalists have written detailed accounts of the trial’s progress, but they are severely constrained by contempt of court rules. They are allowed to give a fair and accurate report of each day’s proceedings, but they aren’t allowed to comment, to weigh witnesses’ credibility, or even to join the dots between what different witnesses are saying. Some people still facing charges cannot be named in British news reports.

Three of the accused are on trial for phone hacking — Brooks (former editor of the News of the World and the Sun, then chief executive of News International, who resigned in July 2011 with a payout of 10.8 million pounds from Rupert Murdoch), Coulson (deputy to Brooks at News of the World, and then editor, who resigned in early 2007 and formally accepted responsibility for the phone hacking of the royal princes while denying all knowledge of it, and who then became communications director for British PM David Cameron, resigning from that post in January 2011) and Stuart Kuttner (managing editor of the News of the World). Ian Edmondson (news editor of News of the World) was also charged but his case was set aside in December because of ill health; he will be tried by a different jury at a later date.

Brooks and Coulson also face bribery charges. Although the prosecutor argued that Brooks and Coulson had conspired to pay money to corrupt public officials for over a decade, only a small number of instances are being pursued. Brooks is charged with authorising payments to a senior official from the Ministry of Defence (who has pleaded guilty to receiving the bribes) and to a member of the Defence forces and his wife. Coulson, together with former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman, is charged with bribing unidentified palace police officers in order to obtain royal telephone directories. Goodman has already spent time in jail for hacking royal phones, and the charge is that obtaining these directories illegally was a step in facilitating that activity.

… Blunkett and his staff were surprised by the editor’s complete certainty about the relationship.”

Finally, Brooks, her husband, Charlie, her personal assistant and a senior security officer at News International are charged with perverting the course of justice by destroying evidence.

The trial began dramatically, when the prosecutor revealed that four others had pleaded guilty to phone-hacking charges — three senior editorial executives at Murdoch’s News of the World: Neville Thurlbeck, Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup, plus the paper’s specialist hacker, Glenn Mulcaire.

Puzzlingly, these four were not called by the prosecution as witnesses, even though each was in a position to testify directly on the phone-hacking charges with which their superiors have been charged. I thought perhaps this was for legal reasons, but during the prosecution case, another journalist who had pleaded guilty, Dan Evans, appeared. He testified how pleased Coulson had been when he told him he had hacked actor Sienna Miller’s phone and had discovered a message in which she said she loved James Bond star Daniel Craig.

Although the prosecution argues (and the defence teams agree) that the phone hacking victims numbered in the hundreds, only a few were called — including Jude Law and Sienna Miller. Even then, the prosecution’s evidence didn’t always proceed smoothly. Coulson’s lawyer was able to point out that Coulson was in New York when Evans claims to have told him of the phone tap, although an embarrassed Evans said this was merely a confusion of dates. Law was visibly shocked when a defence barrister gave him the name of a close family member whom it was claimed had been paid bribes by the paper to give confidential information.

Earlier the prosecution had canvassed several other cases, including the one whose revelation had ignited the scandal in July 2011, that of murder victim Milly Dowler. Because of a message mistakenly left by an employment agency, the paper became convinced that Milly was still alive. It tried to convince police to follow this line of investigation, only for it to prove fruitless.

In addition, several Labour MPs and ministers had their phones hacked. In 2004 then-home secretary David Blunkett was struggling to save his relationship with the woman he loved, Spectator publisher Kimberly Quinn, a married woman. But he did not suspect that his every message was being monitored by the News of the World. Police found 330 of those voicemail messages in the safe of the company lawyer, Tom Crone. The paper also wrongly suspected that Blunkett was having an affair with another woman, and she and her partner, ex-boyfriend, parents and other family members all became targets.

When Coulson confronted Blunkett with the accusation of his affair with Quinn, Blunkett and his staff were surprised by the editor’s complete certainty about the relationship. Blunkett, who was not married, pleaded his right to privacy. But Coulson replied that as home secretary, he could not use his right to privacy to “bat back that you have had an affair with a married woman”. Coulson offered not to name the woman in the News of the World; the Sun named her the following week.

*Rodney Tiffen is the author of Rupert Murdoch: A Reassessment, published this month. Read the rest of this article at Inside Story.

15
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    It’s funny how determined these Murdoch employees were to get a story - here, what do you have to do to get them to look into a hint of “Abbott funny business”, that might embarrass the Murdoch government’s chances of re-election?

  • 2
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Is it some amazing plot from outer space, the Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, space ship Indor or a galaxy west of Saturn? How did any of the above mentioned-allegedly criminal-journalists come to flower unless the culture and ambience of Rupert Murdoch’s news-machines acted as a hot house of deceit?

    Western Democracy is a tired old whore. And all men are not created equal. A civilisation where its mega-rich citizens avoid condemnation and civil law is no better than the Roman, or any preceding civilisation.

    Murdoch makes me ashamed to be Australian.

  • 3
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    When news becomes entertainment - but they sure can’t take the sort of heckling they love to give out?

    I hate what Murdoch and his minions have done to the country - and he bailed out.

  • 4
    leon knight
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    The possibility of turning as ugly (mentally and emotionally, as well as physically)as Rupert does not make you look forward to old age…..

  • 5
    drmick
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Spot on Klewso. Even non murdoch press is sensitive just in case murdoch takes over 100% of the press in the country,shuts the abc and they have no where to work. Its just like 1984, complete with big brother except that ours in a bile filled pimp.

  • 6
    DiddyWrote
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    That Rebekah got a 10.8 million pound pay out, was a little fact I was unaware of.
    Will it be enough to ensure her silence or is it just the first payment of many more to come?
    Still Rupert has just had a unexpected windfall from the Australian Tax Office which should easily cover any additional costs.

  • 7
    AR
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Teh million quidlets buy a lot of silent porridge.

  • 8
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I agree Venise….and luckily, we don’t have to feel ashamed at being Aussies, ‘cos Rupert is no longer one of us.

  • 9
    Sharkie
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    On another News Limited story, can anyone find an article about the $880 million of taxpayer’s money gifted to rupert in any of his newspapers. Do their journos think this isn’t newsworthy or are they just utterly spineless?

  • 10
    DiddyWrote
    Posted Monday, 17 February 2014 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Hi Sharkie,
    You aren’t wrong there doesn’t appear to be any reference to Rupert’s remarkable windfall from the ATO on the Limited News website, they are normally not so coy about their success.

    The whole timing of this roll over by the ATO is highly suspicious.
    Hockey was making threatening noises in May 2013.

    http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/hockey_keeps_singing_chris_split_Rmo3etbCuw2SuiGvZ832ZM
    The ATO (led by somebody who had only been in the job for 7 months) has to decide if to appeal on an ancient case just weeks before the general election which is tipped to be won by a highly partisan Murdoch supported party.

    880 million dollars (for moving virtual debt between various international bodies) is placing 40 dollars of every man, woman and child in Australia straight into Rupert Murdoch’s pocket.

    This is the true face of entitlement.

  • 11
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    PR Protection Racket at Work”?

  • 12
    drmick
    Posted Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Irony plus. In my game Klewso, PR is an accepted abbreviation for “per rectum”. So rupert decrees that his @rse be protected as well as kissed; and they all start puckering up. Again.

  • 13
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Obviously part of a union, this lot.
    Otherwise they couldn’t possibly be corrupt, now could they?

  • 14
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    I’m wondering if the 10.8 million pound pay out was supposed to be performance related? If so, how much would she have got if under her watch, the company hadn’t become the target of ire from a large section of the nation, if the company wasn’t now part of a drawn out and costly legal case, if many of its staff members weren’t facing jail time and if the paper she was supposed to be managing hadn’t shut down in disgrace?
    Of course, little setbacks like these, won’t stop her organisation lecturing the rest of us on morality, efficiency, management technique and the scourge of an inflated sense of entitlement.

  • 15
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Depends on where that performance was?

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...