Phone-hacking trial: The lunch, the letter and the prime minister's friend
After a delayed start while a legal matter was discussed, the trial of Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson and six others resumed this morning in court 12 at London’s central criminal court, the Old Bailey. When the jury took their seats the prosecution called their next witness, Joanne Manoukian.
David Cameron
Mrs Manoukian told the court that she arranged the lunch in 2006 between yesterday’s witness Eimear Cook and Rebekah Brooks. The witness told the court she was still in contact with Brooks but no longer with Cook. Andrew Edis QC asked the witness what the purpose of the lunch was. Manoukian responded that Cook was “receiving bad press” and was unhappy about it, and as she knew Brooks she thought that it might be helpful for them to meet. Asked by Edis what she remembered about the conversation, the witness could not recall specific details except that Cook was generally unhappy with the press.
Edis then had the witness shown a statement she had made to police and asked her when she had last met Brooks. Manoukian told the jury that this was in May 2012 at a party, a few days before she was first interviewed by police.
Jonathan Laidlaw, QC for Rebekah Brooks, then rose to cross-examine the witness. He queried the date the witness had given for the lunch, asking her if it was not 2004 rather than 2006. The witness agreed she did have difficulty in dating the lunch as she had “a lot of lunches and dinners". Manoukian was then asked where the lunch took place and agreed that it was around a “modest sized table” that sat about eight people. Justice Saunders intervened, saying “very modest”, which led to laughter in court.
Laidlaw then asked the witness if she had heard any discussion about phone hacking or accessing voicemails. Manoukian told the court she had no recollection of this being discussed at the lunch. The witness confirmed that she had been at a party with Brooks a few days before the police contacted her over the party, but they had never discussed the matter then or since. The barrister then thanked the witness and sat down.
Andrew Edis than those to re-examine the witness. Manoukian confirmed that she and Brooks had been in telephone contact recently but they had not discussed the case.
The next witness called was Rafi Manoukian. After being sworn in the witness confirmed he had known Cook since 1990 when her then husband, Colin Montgomerie, had played golf with him in Brunei. He had met Brooks around 1998 through a mutual friend and knew her “reasonably well” as they sometimes holidayed together. The witness told the jury that Eimear Cook was “in a bit of a state” over media coverage and either he or his wife had arranged the lunch meeting between Cook and Brooks. Asked about what was discussed at the lunch, the witness told the court that what he recalled was how badly Cook was being treated by the media and they discussed how she could get her side of the story across to the press. He did not recall any “requests” from Cook to Brooks or if Brooks gave any advice.
Under questioning from Edis, Manoukian told the court he was not in the room during the whole duration of the lunch as he stepped out for a cigarette on two or three occasions.
Jonathan Laidlaw QC, for Brooks, then rose to cross-examine the witness. Manoukian told the court that Brooks had agreed to meet Cook as a favour to him. Asked how he would describe Brooks he said, “Rebekah is quite a quiet lady, more of a listener than a talker”, and confirmed that is how she acted during the lunch. Manoukian also told the court he had no recollection of any conversation about listening to voicemails but it was “not impossible” he had left the room for a few minutes during the event. But he added that it would be “highly unlikely” that both he and his wife would have left their guests alone. The witness then left the stand and the jury was asked to leave the court while a legal matter was discussed.
On the jury’s return the prosecution had read into evidence a statement from Eimear Cook’s mother’s friend Margaret Atkinson. In the statement Atkinson confirmed that telephone numbers found by police on the notes of convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire belonged to her.
The next witness called was Dom Loehnis, a former journalist, now a recruitment consultant. Loehnis confirmed to the court he attended a party in October 2010 at Chequers hosted by the prime minister, David Cameron, during which he sat next to Rebekah Brooks. Asked to recall the conversation, Loehnis told the court that he had asked Brooks if Andy Coulson, then the prime minister’s press secretary, would survive press calls for his resignation. The witness told the court Brooks replied that “the story wouldn't go away” as “at a point of time people had worked out how to access voicemails with a default code and who knew how many people had done it". Loehness told the court this was “in the context of journalists” who hacked phones “almost because you can”.
Edis then asked the witness if Brooks expressed any opinion on whether phone hacking was “lawful or unlawful, right or wrong?” Loehnis replied she did not. He also recalled Brooks telling him “there was one default code and nobody changed it.. people put that code in and discovered they had got a hold of voicemails". Edis then asked the witness about his contact with Brooks and Loehnis confirmed he had written Brooks a letter after her resignation from News International, which had been discovered by police. This, the witness confirmed, was how he came to be giving evidence.
Laidlaw then rose to cross-examine Loehnis. He asked about an email exchange between Loehnis and police. The witness told the court that he had thought he was to be a defence witness. Laidlaw then asked the witness if he could recall the exact words Brooks had used. The witness said he had not and agreed he had not placed any particular significance on the conversation at the time or taken any written notes of it.
The witness confirmed that two police officers had arrived without notice at his workplace in July 2011 to question him about the letter he had sent to Brooks. The letter, the witness confirmed, was to say, “I’m sorry that this has happened to you”, but the police were only interested in a single paragraph where he referenced the Chequers party conversation. Laidlaw suggested to Loehnis that it was “common knowledge” that there were weaknesses in the voicemail systems since the late 1990s. Voicemails were not secure and that was the context of his conversation with Brooks. Laidlaw told the witness that Brooks had no exact recollection of the conversation but did recall that the dinner was for “close friends of the prime minister” with around 60 people present. Loehnis confirmed he was indeed a “close friend of the host” and had made a speech at the party in the form of a poem, which was well received.
The witness was then asked about seating arrangements at the party, and confirmed that it was set out with partners sitting at different tables. Loehnis also confirmed that Andy Coulson was not in attendance. Laidlaw told the court that Brooks' recollection of the exchange was that the witness was concerned that the effect of the story about phone hacking was “going to be a problem for the Tories", and the discussion had not touched upon anyone having personal knowledge of phone hacking. The problem with Coulson was "the spokesman had become the story” to which the witness agreed but could not recall the exact details of that part of the conversation.
Laidlaw then put it to the witness that the exchange in question had only lasted a minute and was only one of the things they had spoken about that night, and suggested Brooks’ comments only reflected common knowledge at the time. The witness agreed that Brooks had not said anything that even hinted that she had commissioned phone hacking while editor of the News of the World and had been relaxed at the party.
Andrew Edis then rose to cross-examine the witness. He asked Loehnis if he recalled the letter he had sent to Brooks, to which the witness replied he had looked at it this morning. Loehnis also confirmed he became aware of the issue of phone hacking through publicity in the “mid 2000s". The witness then stepped down from the stand.
Mr Laidlaw then called to the stand detective constable Fletcher, the case officer dealing with the charges against Rebekah Brooks. Fletcher confirmed she had taken the original witness statements from Eimear Cook and Loehnis. Laidlaw questioned the witness about the timing of the statements taken from Cook and about her legal representation. The officer confirmed that Cook’s statement went through two revisions before finally being signed. Turning to Mulcaire’s notes, Laidlaw suggested that the note relating to Cook showed “no evidence of a successful hack”. Fletcher replied that she would need to know what was in Mulcaire’s mind to know what he did for the information. Andrew Edis then rose to object to the question on the basis that this was a matter of argument and not for the officer to answer.
The court then rose for lunch.