Phone-hacking trial: McCartney, Mills and 'the feud of the rings'
As court resumed after lunch, Jonathan Laidlaw QC, for Rebekah Brooks, was due to resume the cross-examination of DC Fletcher on documents relating to the testimony of Eimear Cook whom the court heard from yesterday. Before this could commence however the jury passed a note to the judge and case was adjourned while this was dealt with.
Paul McCartney and Heather Mills
When court resumed, Justice Saunders addressed the jury. He told them the matter they had raised was being dealt with and there was no difficulty in continuing the case. Mr Laidlaw then continued his cross-examination of Fletcher.
The QC put it to the witness that there was no evidence from Glenn Mulcaire’s notes that Cook’s voicemail had ever been hacked before 2004, and the officer also confirmed that police had been unable to link any News of the World story to the alleged hack of Cook’s voicemail or had recovered any relevant tapes of voicemails from Mulcaire’s home.
Laidlaw asked the officer to confirm to the jury the duty of the police to be “of an open mind” and investigate a case impartially. Fletcher agreed this was of the case. The barrister then put it to the officer that it would not be “good policing to simply accept a witness's account” and they should look for material to either support or refute evidence, to which again the officer agreed. Laidlaw then asked if the officer had approached Cook’s evidence with an open mind and if she had done a “proper and fair” examination of it. Fletcher said she had.
The barrister then showed the jury the article from the News of the World, previously cited, about an argument between Paul McCartney and Heather Mills which led to McCartney throwing his engagement ring out of a hotel window. At that point Mr Edis, for the prosecution, asked if the jury could leave the court for a moment.
When the jury returned, Laidlaw returned to the article and asked what the police thinking on the article was, and asked if the officer had done any work to confirm if it was linked to unlawful interception of voicemails. Fletcher said she had but had been “unable to link” the piece to an actual interception. The officer told the jury she had contacted one of the journalists named in the piece, and the other was not contactable. There was also no call data from 2002 that could confirm a hack had taken place.
Laidlaw then showed the officer a copy of an email exchange between her and the NotW journalist named on the story. It asks what the source for the McCartney article was. The journalist responded that she had gathered information from staff at the hotel, after being tasked by the NotW newsdesk to work on the story after a “tip off” phoned into the paper. The journalist added that everyone at the hotel was talking about the story and that she quoted three members of staff in her piece.
Laidlaw then put it to Fletcher that it was clear the article was sourced from a “phone in”, not voicemail interception, and the police officer said that was “possible". She further confirmed that no witness statement was taken from the journalist concerned. Laidlaw told the court that this document had not been disclosed to the defence from the prosecution and he had obtained his copy from the journalist concerned.
Laidlaw then showed the police officer a contributor payment document which the officer confirmed she had not seen before. It shows a payment of £750 for “Feud of the Rings” to a person not named in court. The officer agreed the “timing worked” for this to be in relation to the McCartney story. Moving on to Eimear Cook’s statement, the officer was asked about how she dated the lunch meeting between Cook and Brooks. The officer said she had used Brooks' desk diary.
Laidlaw then asked DC Fletcher about how the letter from Dom Loehnis to Brooks had come into the posession of the police. The officer told the court it was siezed from a solicitors office after being given to them by Brooks. The barrister asked if Loehnis had been given any advance notice before the police visited his workplace. Fletcher confirmed he had not.
Andrew Edis, QC for the prosecution, then rose to examine the witness. He asked why there was no call data from Mulcaire in 2002. The officer told the court that it was “too long ago” as at that time the call data was deleted by the phone company after 12 months. Fletcher was then allowed to leave the stand.
Mark Bryant-Heron then began to read into evidence documentary evidence relating to the case against Andy Coulson. The first, from 2006, was an email from a NotW lawyer to Coulson giving a summary of the current state of the police investigation into phone hacking and stating that the police have a list of over 100 potential victims. The email also mentions a story about Hugh Grant where police have a “phrase from a NotW story which is identical to a tape found at GM’s house". Further emails cataloging the NotW’s response to the phone hackng charges against its then royal correspondent Clive Goodman were also shown to the court. In one, Coulson states that the probation service have a “clear anti-NotW agenda because of Sarah’s law”.
Further documents relating to budgets and administrative matters at the paper were then read into evidence. It being 4.20, the court was adjourned for the day.
All of the defendants continue to deny all of the charges, the trial continues.