The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Phone-Hacking Trial Clive Goodman

Phone-hacking trial: Andy Coulson defence 'delightfully vague' and 'skulduggery', court told

By James Doleman

May 27, 2014 | 9 min read

    Court: David Spens QC

  • Sale of Royal phone books a "long standing practice" court told
  • "If a crime mentioned in an email it probably didn't happen" defence barrister claims
  • Andy Coulson "couldn't care less" about phone hacking jury hears
  • Former editor's evidence on hacking payments called "delightfully vague"
  • Court resumed today to hear closing argument from David Spens QC, representing former News of the World Royal editor Clive Goodman. Goodman is charged, along with Andy Coulson, with two counts of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office over the purchase of two Royal telephone directories, which the prosecution claim were bought from police officers.

    The defence barrister began his address to the jury by showing the jury the two Royal phone books seized by police from Clive Goodman's home in 2006. "What the fuss is all about?" he asked. The first of these, the internal telephone directory "contained almost no private information", Spens told the court, and was mostly made up of internal extension numbers from the various Royal residences. The second, a "Green book" did contain some personal information including addresses, and some mobile telephone numbers. "It's a posher version of the internal directory," the barrister said, but asked the jury to consider "no-one whose mobile numbers are in these books was hacked, none of them". In addition, witness Sir Michael Peat had told the court that the sale of the books was a "long standing practice as there was an almost total absence of security surrounding these Green Books", Spens said, telling the court the information was "unimportant" and "trivial".

    The QC then asked the jury to consider that the police had taken no action in 2006 when they first found the phone books in Goodman's home. "They didn't investigate" as it was "not a big deal", he said. Spens then reminded the jury that they had to consider if they were "sure" that Goodman bought the books from a police officer and if they thought there was a possibility they had come from another source they would have to find his client not guilty. The jury was reminded that Goodman had testified under oath that neither of his main sources - "Farish" and "Anderson" - were police officers but he had told his editor Andy Coulson they were to ensure they were paid on time. This was "salesmanship" on behalf of his source, the barrister suggested.

    The defence barrister then asked the jury to consider that the only evidence against his client was his own emails to Andy Coulson. Spens reminded the jury that in the "hacking" emails both parties used code words. If Goodman was paying police officers, the jury was invited to consider, would he have written it in plain language? So logically, the QC said, "If a crime is actually mentioned in an email it probably didn't happen," telling the court that this was important and not just a "clever lawyer's point". The barrister reminded the court that the relationship between Royal protection officers and journalists was not good. "The danger is you look through the wrong end of the telescope," he told the jury.

    The jury was then told that "massive efforts have been made to find this corrupt police officer, no such police officer has ever been found", even though, Spens added, "no stone has been left unturned". The barrister reminded the jury that over the last three years over 270 police officers had been fingerprinted, bank accounts had been checked and "police officers in this inquiry, perhaps were trying to atone for the superficial nature of their first investigation". Spens asked the jury to remember that no links between uniformed officers and his client had ever been found. Goodman, the barrister agreed, had remained silent during police interviews, however he asked the jury to consider that if he had answered questions "his name would have been mud within his profession" and invited them not to hold his silence against his client.

    Spens then went on to suggest that counts two and three were a storm in a tea cup. He reminded the jury that the only "corrupt police officer" located during operation Weating was DC Cripps, who was leaking information to Amelia Hill of the Guardian about the course of the investigation. The barrister asked the jury to consider that as "no money changed hands because they were in a relationship", were "double standards being employed"? The barrister went on to ask the jury: "Is an officer less untrustworthy because he did it in the course of a relationship, or more untrustworthy because he did it for money?"

    Court then took a short break.

    When court resumed, the defence barrister apologised to the jury for stating DC Cripps and Amelia Hill of the Guardian were in a relationship. "There is no evidence of this," he told the jury.

    Spens then went on to the issue of phone-hacking, telling the jury that he was inviting no sympathy for Goodman, who has admitted intercepting voicemails, as his behaviour was deplorable. He asked the court to remember "what this case is really about", suggesting its main point was to punish journalists who had breached people's privacy. The former Royal editor, he pointed out, had not given evidence that anyone else had known about his phone-hacking except Andy Coulson. "You may think that even without Mr Goodman's evidence the case against Mr Coulson is already strong," he said, adding: "You can convict him even if you reject Mr Goodman's evidence."

    The QC then turned to the issue of the hacking of the phones of Kate Middleton and Prince Harry, which Goodman has now admitted after initially saying he "could not remember" if he had been involved in them. The defence barrister pointed out to the jury that it was only in May this year that his client had been told he would not be prosecuted for these offences, calling his testimony "a white lie as he thought he might still be convicted". The barrister went on: "Sometimes in cross-examining, in trying to ruin a defendant's credibility, it has the opposite effect," and he asked the jury if the "unintended consequence" of Andy Coulson's barrister's questioning of his client was to "strengthen the case against Coulson".

    Spens then asked the jury to recall the number of other defendants who had "taken refuge in not remembering things", adding that they seemed to be suffering a "terrible collective amnesia". He asked the jury to note that his client had answered questions put to him and had not agreed with prosecution suggestions that Coulson had ordered him to hack phones. "He didn't have to do that," he said. The QC continued that "Mr Goodman has been open and fair" and said he had been "willing to provide police with bank records and has waived his legal professional privilege". His client, the barrister invited the jury to consider, had also "helped Mr Coulson" by telling the court that emails over Helen Asprey had nothing to do with phone-hacking.

    Spens went on to discuss Andy Coulson, and suggested to the jury: "You may think he was ruthless in the pursuit of a story," pointing to his publication of articles based on hacked voicemails from then home secretary David Blunkett. The barrister went on to note that Coulson had not told the police about the 2004 hack of Blunkett or taken any action to prevent voicemail interception happening again. "You may think that is because he approved of it and couldn't care less how stories were obtained," he asked the jury to consider, adding: "You can conclude his main instinct was self preservation [in the] ruthless tabloid world."

    The defence barrister then went on to remind the jury about the conduct of a News International lawyer, who we cannot name for legal reasons who, Andy Coulson testified, was told about phone-hacking in 2004 but took no action. He then went on to discuss Henri Brandman, a lawyer hired to represent Goodman after his arrest in 2006. "He had a duty of confidentiality to his client," Spens said, yet he had passed information on to the News International lawyer without permission. "This is not something we should accept," he added. "It is up to you," Spens told the jury, "but I would suggest Mr Kuttner and Mr Coulson have deliberately misled you" over the retainer paid to phone-hacker Glenn Mulcaire, he said, and pointed out that the payments came from the "editorial management budget" controlled by both men rather than the normal news desk budget. "Is it possible that Mr Coulson would pay £500 a week to an untried source who had never delivered any stories without knowing it was Mr Mulcaire?" he asked. The evidence Coulson had given, the barrister suggested, about this was "delightfully vague" and was "skulduggery, a crafty attempt to deceive you".

    Court then rose for lunch.

    Click here to view The Drum's daily phone-hacking trial coverage straight from the Old Bailey

    Phone-Hacking Trial Clive Goodman

    More from Phone-Hacking Trial

    View all

    Trending

    Industry insights

    View all
    Add your own content +