The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Phone-hacking trial: Pleading, paranoia and spanners after journalist's arrest

By James Doleman |

April 24, 2014 | 8 min read

  • Coulson accused of not helping police investigation to 'save his own skin'
  • Jury told of build up to journalist's guilty plea
  • Corporate concerns that Goodman could "throw spanners" revealed in court
  • "Misplaced paranoia" about probation service as result of Sarah's Law
  • Court resumed after lunch to hear further cross-examination of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson by David Spens QC, counsel for the newspaper's former royal reporter Clive Goodman. Spens began by returning to events in 2006 after Goodman had been arrested for intercepting voicemails of members of the royal household. The former editor told the court that while Goodman had been suspended, he was doing some work for the paper around book serialisations.

    Spens reminded the witness about his testimony yesterday that he had decided not to volunteer information to the police, especially about the 2004 hacking of David Blunkett's voicemails. "That was my decision, I chose to do that," Coulson replied. The barrister put it to him that "you didn't do so because it may have come back on you, you were concerned to save your own skin".

    The defendant was then asked why he was looking to secure a copy of the prosecution case notes from Clive Goodman, which Goodman has told the court he was unhappy about. "You were pretty forceful about it," Spens suggested, "I don't think so, I thought it was a reasonable request," Coulson replied, denying suggestions that Goodman was "being difficult by standing up for himself". Coulson further denied he had instructed a News International legal advisor, who we cannot name for legal reasons, to inform Goodman that he would be dismissed only if he implicated other staff at the News of the World. "I don't remember at any stage giving instructions on what messages we would deliver," he told the court, adding that he was not the legal advisor's boss.

    The court was then shown a transcript of a phone conversation between Goodman and Coulson from November 2006. The transcript showed Coulson telling Goodman that "it was not a foregone conclusion" that he would lose his job, to which Goodman replied: "I just don't see how it is possible." The defence QC suggested that the reason Coulson made the promise was that if Goodman knew he was to be sacked there would be "nothing stopping him telling the court about your role in the Alexander project". "That was not in my mind," the defendant told the court. "You did this to keep him onside," the barrister said. "That's not true," Coulson replied. "I was trying to be reasonable," he added.

    The defendant was then asked what he meant in the call when he said he had a "duty of care" to Goodman. Coulson said that was how he felt at the time, especially as he had been putting pressure on the journalist to get more stories. "This was just a strategy to keep him onside," Spens suggested. "No, no," Coulson replied asking: "If Clive thinks I knew his source was Glen Mulcaire why does he not mention it in this call he is taping?"

    Coulson was then asked why he was so keen to see the prosecution papers in the Goodman case. "Where you worried there was something there that might implicate you," the barrister asked. "I was looking to see if there was anything there that could help or hinder," he said, adding: "I don't think it was inappropriate, I was asking via my lawyer."

    Court then took a break while some papers were located.

    When proceedings resumed, the defendant was shown a November 2007 email sent to him by the News International legal advisor informing him that Goodman did not want him to attend a meeting with his legal team as he would feel "greatly inhibited". The email also mentions a "five page essay" Goodman had produced for his defence case, information which the defence barrister suggested could only have come from Goodman's solicitor Henry Brandman. Coulson told the court he was "quite sure" he did not know what was in the essay and did not recall any conversations when it was discussed. The defence barrister asked the defendant if this email had not "put him on the alert?" "I don't know what I thought at the time," Coulson replied. "I simply don't know." Later that month, the court was told, Goodman pleaded guilty to charges of illegally intercepting communications of members of the royal household.

    The court was shown an email of a draft public statement from Coulson in preparation for the expected guilty plea. The statement says that the newspaper "had prepared new guidelines" in reaction to the case. "What were these," the QC asked. "The school of excellence," Coulson replied, but could not remember a specific document being produced. His recollection was that "we had sent an email to staff reiterating, not reiterating, making clear, what was our position on voicemail interception." The News International legal advisor responds that there may be a problem as "Clive might think you are accusing him of breaching your guidelines".

    The second email draft of the statement, the court was shown, removed the reference to guidelines and instead said "measures have been taken to ensure no member of staff could ever carry out such actions again" and had been sent to a News International executive along with a comment: "will my statement cause a problem with Clive?" "You were concerned he was going to tell the truth," the QC said. "That's not true," Coulson replied. The emailed statement was replied to by a senior journalist warning that "there will be a long gap between the plea and any sentence in which Clive could throw spanners" and asks what the measures had been put in place. "He did not know what measures you had taken?" Spens asked. "That's not my interpretation," Coulson replied. At this point Judge Saunders intervened and pointed out that the draft statement said that phone hacking would be "a sacking defence". "I don't recall that being the position over Clive," Coulson replied.

    The defence QC put it to the witness that Goodman had pleaded guilty to a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, and this was the time to dismiss him. "There were grounds to do so," Coulson replied, but that is "now how I felt and not how the company felt." Spens suggested that "you did not sack him because he could still reveal your role in the Alexander project". "That's not the case," the defendant replied. Coulson was asked about an email he sent to Rebekah Brooks on the day Goodman pleaded guilty stating: "It's all going so well today". The defendant repeated his earlier evidence that this was only a reference to media coverage and in fact "it was a disastrous day, for the paper and, as it turned out, for me personally."

    Coulson was then asked about an email he sent asking if Goodman's lawyer would be present at his meeting with his probation officer. "I was just curious," he told the court, to which the defence barrister replied: "You were desperate to know what he was going to say." In a further email, Coulson asks that Goodman be informed that the probation service had an agenda against the News of the World due to Sarah's Law. "It was misplaced paranoia," the defendant said, "but I just wanted Clive to know that, only it was clearly misplaced". "You were trying to put him off telling the truth," Spens suggested. The defendant denied this but admitted that on the issue of the probation service "I was wrong". In January, Coulson emailed the News of the World legal advisor asking if there was "any news about Clive's probation meeting". "I was just generally interested," the defendant said, but denied he was "keeping a close eye" on the probation officer's report.

    Court then rose for the day

    All of the defendants deny all of the charges, the trial continues

    Trending

    Industry insights

    View all
    Add your own content +