The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Phone-Hacking Trial Dan Evans

Phone-hacking trial: Undiplomatic immunity

By James Doleman

January 29, 2014 | 12 min read

  • Cross examination of journalist Dan Evans begins
  • Witness admits previous statement was "cobblers"
  • Evans wanted "full immunity" in exchange for testimony
  • Blames "massive conspiracy" for giving false statements
  • Evans has signed "section 73" agreement with CPS

Court resumed this morning to hear the cross examination of former News of the World journalist Dan Evans. Evans, who has pleaded guilty to intercepting voicemails, has already testified that senior executives at the newspaper, including defendant Andy Coulson, were aware of his activities. Yesterday, the witness told the court that he had played a recording from James Bond actor Daniel Craig's phone to Coulson, who responded "brilliant" and then gave him instructions on how to make it appear the tape had been handed in anonymously to the newsdesk.

Evidence: Evans wanted immunity, the court heard

Once the jury had taken their seats, Timothy Langdale QC, acting for Coulson, rose to question Evans. He began by asking the witness if his statement about his client saying "brilliant" was truthful evidence. Evans said it may have been a "paraphrase". Langdale replied: "You have a habit of doing that, don't you?" The barrister then brought into evidence his three previous witness statements where Evans had never used the word "brilliant" in connection with what Coulson said at the time. Evans said he was just trying to describe Coulson's reaction in a true and accurate sense.

Langdale put it to Evans that the account he was giving now was not "the one you started with in 2010," and pointed out that the witness had "lied" in the past about his phone-hacking activities both to the police and to News International executives. "I'm ashamed that I did," Evans said. "We'll see how ashamed you are in due course," Langdale replied. The witness was then shown statements he had given in 2010 over the alleged hacking of Kelly Hopper's phone where he blamed "sticky keys" for dialling her voicemail. "You advanced completely untrue suggestions," the barrister suggested. Evans replied: "This is a document drafted by News International lawyers," adding "this was an enormous conspiracy I was caught into... I was toeing the company line."

Evans told the court he was "extremely frightened at the time" but was now telling the truth. Langdale put it to the witness that he had a "habit of blaming others for things that you have done". "I am being honest," Evans replied.

The defence lawyer then asked Evans about him instructing a firm of solicitors, Peters and Peters, in September 2010. They, the court was told, had written to the police telling them Evans was going to co-operate so there was no need to search his home. However, in August 2011 Evans himself was arrested. Langdale asked the witness about a prepared statement he had given then and asked if it was the truth. "It was cobblers," Evans admitted.

Langdale then asked if the witness had been given a verbal indication by police that they would be "interested in what you have to say" and Evans agreed that by November 2011 he was "considering helping the police" and was seeking immunity from prosecution. "In an ideal world, yes," the witness said. Section 71 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act offers the possibility of immunity from prosecution, Langdale said. "That was the ball you were running with," the barrister suggested to Evans. It was a "very scary situation", the witness replied.

The defence then brought into evidence a meeting in December 2011 where Evans and his legal representatives discussed the immunity issue. Evans agreed he had asked "what have they got on me?" The defence lawyer asked about a name "starting with N, second name D". "Nick Davies?" Evans asked. The witness was then asked if he had said: "Every journalist in the News of the World was messing about with phone-hacking". He replied: "It was part of the culture of tabloid newspapers at the time."

Langdale suggested to the witness that the problem with getting immunity was the fact he had already committed perjury in a civil case. "The whole thing was a big problem, I was caught between the prime minister, the tabloid world and highly paid lawyers," Evans said. At further meetings, the defence said it was suggested that immunity would only come if he spoke to police about the "involvement of others". Evans replied: "Yup".

Langdale then brought into evidence the minute of a meeting Evans had with his Lawyers in February 2012 where the view was expressed that "if the police had a really strong case they would not be talking about immunity for you". The witness agreed that was the advice he was given at the time. Langdale asked what Evans had meant by his statement that "phone-hacking was discussed at daily editorial conferences" when he never attended these conferences. Evans replied that he had been told by another journalist that this had happened over one of his stories. "You are prone to making sweeping assertions that are not backed up by fact," Langdale said. Evans replied: "No sir, but I can see why you would say that."

The defence counsel put it to Evans again that his only prospect of getting immunity would be in exchange for giving information about people at "senior levels" within News International. Evans agreed that was his impression and he had discussed, hypothetically, testifying against executives at the Sunday Mirror, where he was previously employed. Evans was asked if his lawyer had told him he would be able to "go all the way to the door of immunity before being able to retreat". The witness agreed that was what he had been told.

Langdale then suggested that the story about Coulson and the tape "was just not true" and that the witness had not mentioned it to anyone until 2012. Evans replied: "That is what happened." Defence counsel then asked about a meeting on 14 May when representatives of Evans met with police officers from a SOCPA immunity team. The witness agreed that he had been informed that for police to be able to consider immunity he would have to testify about the "bigger picture, drivers ethos and pressure from above". Police had added that if all he was going to say was that everyone else was phone-hacking, they were "not interested".

The defence then asked Evans about his "lengthy" interviews with police, which took place over three days in July 2012, and handed him a transcript of the first of these. Langdale highlighted the early part of the interview where he had been told by police this was a "voluntary process" which he could leave at any time and therefore was not under caution. The witness agreed this is what he was told at the time. Langdale asked about a statement Evans gave in this interview where he said: "I have studied my craft and tried to be a good writer and have always tried to uphold the ethics and morals of being a journalist," adding: "I can pin point the moment I took the wrong path. I want to be able to look my kids in the eye when they are older and tell them to tell the truth... I want a clean slate... I want to go on with my life down the right path." The witness agreed this is what he had said.

Langdale put it to the witness that none of what he said in these interviews could be used to prosecute him as the interview was not under caution. Evans agreed that he understood they could use it to make further inquiries but not to prosecute him. "If you didn't get immunity you could walk away from the whole process," Langdale said. "That is not how it turned out," Evans replied. "We'll come to that later," the defence lawyer said. "I can't wait," the witness replied.

The court then took a short break.

When court resumed Timothy Langdale continued his cross examination of Daniel Evans, asking him to confirm that in August 2012 police came back to his lawyers saying "they wanted more" before they could consider immunity from prosecution for Evans. They had also stipulated that he would have to waive legal privilege and agree to testify in court. "You were ready to agree to anything to get immunity," the counsel suggested. Evans replied that he "didn't have a problem with going through the process", and had written to his lawyer agreeing to waive privilege, saying: "Full immunity is the only thing I am after."

Langdale then put it to the witness that by November 2012 "the prospect of you getting immunity began to darken" and there was "disappointment" at the response of the police and Crown Prosecution Service to the proposal. Attention then turned to the prospect of invoking section 73 of SOCPA, which gives a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. Evans agreed that he had agreed this would not make much difference to any possible sentence he would receive for phone-hacking. By December, documents shown to the court showed that Evans' lawyers had given up on attempts to obtain immunity and were instead hoping that the CPS would decide not to prosecute or at least offer a section 73. Langdale asked if Evans had said "no point in writing to them, really pisses me off". The witness responded: "Sounds like the kind of thing I would say." In January 2013, the CPS confirmed there would be no immunity for Evans, noting in a letter to his lawyers that "he would be extremely vulnerable to the charge he had made up evidence" if immunity was offered.

Evans' lawyers had then written back to police withdrawing co-operation. "What happened to making a clean slate for your children?" Langdale asked. Evans said he took advice from lawyers. "I'd had enough of being used as a football by all the people in this particular game, I'd had enough," the witness said. "Things got even worse for you as police came down on you in a pretty heavy way," Landale suggested and Evans agreed that they had sought to interview him under caution about his involvement with phone-hacking. "Your tactics had not come off," Langdale suggested and pointed out he had been arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over a civil suit. "You were out of the frying pan and into the fire," defence counsel said and noted his SOCPA interviews were about to be handed over to the plaintiff in that case.

Evans then confirmed that he had instructed new solicitors and they had advised him to take the section 73 agreement. "Truth is a funny thing," the witness said and Mr Justice Saunders intervened and instructed Evans to answer the question. In June 2013, Langdale told the court, Evans' lawyers had written to the CPS telling them the witness had relied on the advice of his previous solicitors over immunity and was still willing to co-operate with the inquiry.

The letter went on to say that one of the reasons Evans had changed lawyers was "dissatisfaction with their advice" that full immunity was the only option worth pursuing. This was not accurate, Langdale suggested.

"I followed the advice that was proffered to me," the witness replied.

"You were fully informed," the defence barrister said.

"I was never shown the detail, I never laid eyes on it," Evans responded.

Defence counsel then showed the witness an email from his previous lawyers giving details of the section 73 agreement. Evans had replied to the email asking his lawyers to reject the offer and said in court: "This felt like a rebuttal and went against the advice I had been given at the outset." This, Langdale suggested, was "another example of you blaming others for a predicament you were in".

Andrew Edis QC, for the prosecution, then intervened and asked what evidence there was in a letter attached to the email in question. "Lets make the rash assumption there was," Langdale said.

"You rejected the offer to look at the section 73 agreement," Langdale said.

"I felt it was the appropriate response at the time," Evans replied.

"You decided not to bother," the defence counsel said.

The witness was then handed a new folder of documents by the defence barrister which included a section 73 agreement finally signed by Evans in August 2013. It said that if the witness co-operated and participated in a "debriefing process", admitting his involvement in crimes, pleading guilty to any outstanding charges and agreeing to testify in court then "complete details of his co-operation will be placed before any court sentencing him." Evans agreed that as a result of this he gave three further witness statements to police.

Court then rose for lunch.

Click here to view more posts from The Drum's daily phone-hacking trial coverage

Phone-Hacking Trial Dan Evans

More from Phone-Hacking Trial

View all

Trending

Industry insights

View all
Add your own content +