Phone-hacking trial: The cleaner and the lesbian lovers
- Expert witness censured by judge for mistakes in evidence
- Bags found by cleaner contained "Lesbian Lovers" magazine
- Jury excused until Monday
When the jury returned after lunch the court continued to hear from cell phone location expert David Cutts, cross-examined by William Clegg, QC for defendant Mark Hanna (see here for the first part of the testimony). Clegg asked if a particular cell tower provided a service for Jubilee Barn, the country home of Rebekah Brooks. The witness said it could have but agreed he had not detected a signal from that tower during his on-site investigations. The expert told the court that cell phone information had to be "taken in context" and individual pieces of data did not tell the full story. Asked by Justice Saunders to clarify, Cutts told the court that as he could not stand at every spot a call may have been made from, all of his answers had the caveat of "at, or in the vicinity of".
Trial: Charlie and Rebekah Brooks
Clegg then suggested to the witness that he was wrong about the range of the tower and that common sense suggested that connecting from that site from Jubilee Barn was simply impossible. Cutts replied that he had looked at the pattern of events and this suggested that the evidence was consistent with a call from the vicinity of the house. Clegg suggested that the witness was partisan and only interested in one side of the case, but Cutts said he was an independent expert and took neither side. Justice Saunders then suggested to the defence barrister that it was time to move on to another subject. Clegg then said he had made his case clear and ended his cross-examination.
Justice Saunders then addressed the witness, saying Cutts had "obviously been given a hard time today but bear in mind at least three parts of your evidence were wrong, it is essential that experts are truly independent and should be so even if employed by the Metropolitan police, you have accepted to making mistakes and they are serious ones. It is vital courts and judges can rely on experts when they give reports, and from what I've heard so far you have not given satisfactory explanation why. In this case defence checked your conclusions and that may become a more common experience for you in the future."
The next witness called was Fernando Nascimento, who gave evidence via a Portuguese interpreter. Nascimento was asked about his knowledge of events during 18 July 2011 when he was working as a cleaner at the London home of Rebekah and Charlie Brooks in Chelsea's Thames Quay. The witness was then shown photographs of the underground car park at the apartment complex and agreed that these showed the large rubbish bins stored there. When he had gone to empty them on that Sunday morning he noticed a black bin liner behind one of them. The witness agreed that it would have been impossible to see the bag without moving the bins first. The sack had a small hole in the top and Nascimento saw it contained, among other things, a brown leather bag. After emptying the bins the witness told the court he became curious and went back to the bin area, collected the black plastic bag, returned to the loading bay and opened it.
Inside the sack, Nascimento said, he found two leather bags. He opened one and inside found a laptop computer. The witness then took the two bags to his supervisor's office where together they opened the second bag and found an iPad and a variety of papers. They decided to give the bag to security and they called them on the radio. They arrived shortly after and the bags were handed to them. A photograph of two bags was displayed on the court screens and Nascimento confirmed these were the ones he had found.
Neil Saunders QC, acting for Charlie Brooks, then rose to cross-examine the witness. He asked if Nascimento was aware there were CCTV cameras in the underground car park and when he replied yes he showed him a clip of footage from 17 July 2011. The clip showed the witness attaching the bins to his tractor and then returning to retrieve the black bin liner. Saunders asked if he had opened the bin liner before returning to the loading bay, the witness replied that he could not remember exactly. Saunders pointed to the time on the CCTV footage that showed him leaving the car part at 10.44, video of him arriving at the loading bay was then shown which had him arriving at 11.21 and Saunders asked if he could explain how the laptop in the bag could had been opened at 11.04. The witness said he could not remember but did agree he could have taken the laptop out of the bag and opened it. This, the witness said, may have been when he went "down to the river to collect another bin".
Saunders told the court that the person who opened the laptop up had twice tried to enter a password. The witness denied that he had done this and said he did not know if there was CCTV coverage by the river. The defence barrister turned to Nascimento's witness statement where he described the laptop as a "bit broken" and asked what he had meant by this. Through his translator, the witness told the court it looked old and "wasn't a new computer". The defence QC asked the witness if he recognised the computer as a Sony Viao. He replied he did not.
The QC then asked the witness if he could explain inconsistencies in his testimony and his initial statement to the police. Nascimento explained that he had given the statement in Portuguese and it had then been translated into English. It was still, he said "more or less" an accurate account of events. Saunders asked if there was also an Apple laptop in the bag and the witness agreed that that is what he said in his statement. Saunders suggested that it was the Apple laptop that had been opened and a password put into. The witness said this was not him as he "didn't know how to use a computer". He also did not recall seeing his supervisor trying to put in the password. The witness told the court they had not paid much attention to the computer as they often found broken electrical items in the bin. It was only the fact there was a new iPad that made them wonder why it had been thrown away.
Saunders then asked if the witness had seen or opened a "jiffy bag" and said he would remember it as it had contained a magazine called "Lesbian Lovers and seven DVD's". The witness replied that if he "had seen it I might have taken it," which led to laughter in court. Saunders then said that a week before, the bag had contained an envelope with £1,000 in cash in it. Nascimento said he had not seen that as both he and his supervisor were Portuguese and did not read English, and so they had not bothered too much with any of the papers. The witness agreed with Saunders that he and his supervisor were "old friends" and they had known each other for over six years.
Duncan Penny, for Mark Hanna, then rose to cross-examine. He asked the witness if he had noticed the bags before 18 July. He replied he had not. Penny then had the witness go through the details of his dealing with the police and the giving of his witness statement. The barrister then read a section of a second statement given by the witness. In this he mentioned that the police planned to search the waste compactor in which he had disposed of the rubbish on the 18th. Police had shown him two black bin liners and had asked him if these were the bags he had discarded and he replied that one of them was. He could not remember, the statement went on, if there was a second bin bag inside the first. Nascimento confirmed this was accurate and as there were no further questions he was allowed to step down from the witness box.
The final witness of the day was Alan Ramsay. Ramsay told the court that he was the facilities manager at the Chelsea Quay apartment block and had been working on 18 July 2011 when his security officer informed him he had brought two bags that had been found in the car park. Ramsay looked in the bags and found a cheque book with the names Mr and Mrs Brooks on it. The witness agreed that he had known of the police search of the Brookses flat the previous day and he had to make a decision if he should contact the owner or contact the police. He put the bags in a secure cupboard and then had one of his officers check CCTV footage of the area. Not long after, a porter from the building brought Charlie Brooks to the office who told him he had lost a "couple of bags" and he had been told they had been handed into the office. Ramsay asked Brooks how the bags came to be placed in the car park. He replied they had been placed there for him to collect but there had been a "mix-up". Ramsay told Brooks he would investigate the matter, then called the police. They attended and the witness gave them the bags.
Mark Bryant-Heron, for the prosecution, asked about access to the car park and Ramsay told the court the complex used a card system.
Court then adjourned until Monday as the next two days have been put aside for legal discussion. All of the defendants continue to deny all of the charges, the trial continues.
Click here to read more posts from The Drum's daily trial coverage