The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Rebekah Brooks Phone-Hacking Trial

Phone-hacking trial: Brooks and the lunch with the golfer's wife

By James Doleman

November 25, 2013 | 11 min read

When court resumed this afternoon Eimear Cook, the former wife of golfer Colin Montgomerie, was called to the witness stand. As the court heard this morning, her name and mobile number were found in the notes of convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire.

After being sworn in the witness told the court she married Montgomerie in 1990 and divorced in 2004. Andrew Edis QC asked when her marriage “ran into difficulties” and the witness replied in 2001. Cook confirmed that as Montgomerie was in the public eye news of these problems had reached the media. Edis asked if the witness was aware of any “newspaper investigations” into her life. Cook said there were stories in the paper but she was not aware of any investigations.

The prosecution then asked the witness to confirm her mobile phone number and the PIN number used to access her voicemail. The witness confirmed these were correct and the same as those found on Mulcaire’s notes. She also confirmed an address on the notes was that of her bank. Clark then confirmed other details on the notes were that of her mother and sister. The password “driver” on the notes was one used by her husband Montgomerie. The witness also told the court she used voicemail “all the time”.

Cook was then asked if her private life was the subject of any stories in 2004? The witness told the jury the papers were doing a “hatchet job” on her and were accusing her of “multiple affairs” which she said was untrue. The witness described the impact of this as “stressful and upsetting” especially as she had three young children. It was “an extremely anxious time”. Reporters, she said, were at her home from when she opened the curtains and she was followed when she went out of the house. Eventually, Cook said, a friend suggested she should have lunch with someone “high up in the newspapers” to get her side of the story across. She was then introduced to Rebekah Brooks.

The lunch meeting, the witness told the jury, took place in September/October 2004 at her friend’s home. Brooks arrived late due to traffic.

Edis asked Cook about the subject of the conversation which the witness described as “gossipy and fun”. They also discussed Brooks’ domestic row with her then partner Ross Kemp and Kate Moss losing her contract with Chanel. The witness then told the court Brooks had told her “how easy it is to listen to people’s voicemails if they have not changed their factory PIN numbers,” adding “she couldn't believe famous people have all these advisors and don't know they have to change their PIN number to make their voicemail secure.”

Brooks had also told her that Heather Mills had a row with Paul McCartney and gave the witness the impression this was connected with people not changing their PIN code. The prosecution then asked the witness about Brooks’ attitude during this part of the conversation. Cook replied “Quite flippant”.

Cook was then shown a News of the World (NotW) article from January 2005 about her divorce from Colin Montgomerie. In the piece it states Cook was barring Montgomerie from her new home and that she was complaining about his temper. The witness confirmed none of these facts was in the public domain. Asked how the paper could have found out this information Cook replied “no, I’ve never spoken to the press.”

Mr Laidlaw, QC for Brooks, then rose to cross-examine the witness. He asked the witness “to reflect” on her last answer, asking if it was correct. Cook replied that she had never spoken to the press about her marriage. The witness was then given a copy of a statement she had previously given to the police. In this statement Cook is quoted as saying “I have never courted the press” and Laidlaw asked if this accurately reflects her position. The witness responded that as the wife of a famous golfer she did have some involvement in the media. Laidlaw then produced a copy of Hello magazine from 2003, in which an article appears headlined “Eimear Montgomerie talks to Hello about her marriage difficulties” and accused her of doing “precisely the reverse of what you told the jury”. The witness explained that this was when she was together with Montgomerie and was back in the public eye. When she divorced him she felt she was “entitled to her privacy”. Laidlaw reminded the witness she was under oath and had sworn to tell the truth.

Laidlaw then showed the witness a copy of Hello magazine from after September 2004, after she had filed for divorce. On page 118 another article appears of Cook in a “fashion shoot”. Cook replied that this was “done as a favour for a friend” and “I wasn't talking about my marriage”. She also said a photoshoot is not the same as “giving people access to my private life”. Brooks’ lawyer then produced a copy of the Daily Mail from January 2005 which contains an article containing an interview with the witness. Cook agreed she had spoken to a journalist at a party but said the piece was “very embellished” and she had not said everything quoted in the piece. Laidlaw put it to the witness that this was an article that discussed the difficulties in her relationship, something she had said she would not speak about to the press. Cook said she had only denied suggestions that her husband was banned from seeing the children and had never spoken directly to the journalist named in the article, Richard Kay.

The jury was then asked to leave the court while a legal matter was discussed.

On the jury’s return, Laidlaw asked again if she had ever spoken to Richard Kay. Again Cook denied that she had. The jury then passed a note to the judge asking to see the articles being discussed and there was a short delay while this was done. Laidlaw then put it to the witness that the article appears to be an interview with her by Kay. Cook again confirmed she had not spoken to Kay for this piece or indeed has ever met him.

Another Daily Mail piece from September 2006 was then shown to the witness, also bylined Richard Kay and two other journalists. Cook said the “whole piece is untrue” and she had not attended the party mentioned in the article. Another piece by Richard Kay was shown to the witness. Again she denied speaking to Richard Kay but may have spoken to another journalists Helen Minsky as her divorce was behind her and she had just met her future husband. The journalist had rung her and she had briefly spoken to her as she “didn’t want to be rude” or get “more negative press”. An April 2006 piece written for the Mail on Sunday by the witness was shown to her. Cook said this was a travel piece and had nothing to do with her relationship with her former husband.

Laidlaw then came to subject of the lunch Cook had with Rebekah Brooks, asking her if she agreed that Brooks had “not sought her out” and was carrying out an “act of kindness” for mutual friends. Laidlaw put it to the witness that this happened in September 2005 and not September 2004 as she had said. The witness agreed that she “might have got her years mixed up” and agreed the lunch was on 20 September 2005. Laidlaw then asked the witness if her friends, the Manoukians, had been at the lunch when the remark on hacking was made.

Laidlaw then put to the witness that she had “told lies” to the court and had a witness statement she made in March 2012 displayed to the jury. In the statement, which was preceded by earlier drafts, Cook says about Brooks “she was quite a frank and open person who told us about the assault on her husband Ross Kemp… she was laughing while regaling the story”.

Laidlaw asked how someone she had never met was so open about such a sensitive issue and even “laughing” about the story. The witness confirmed Brooks was and said this was a truthful answer. Laidlaw said “this never happened” and that it was quite impossible as the assault did not happen until November 2005. Laidlaw put it to the witness this part of her story was a lie. Cook responded “something to that effect was said”. Laidlaw then brought into evidence newspaper articles showing the date was six weeks after the lunch date, and suggested again the witness had “lied to the jury”. Cook replied “I have nothing to gain”, saying she has “no interest in manipulating facts”.

Laidlaw put it to the witness that phone-hacking was never discussed by Mrs Brooks, and this was “another lie”. Cook denied this. The barrister put it to the witness that her story that the NotW got the story about Paul McCartney through voicemail hacking was “also a lie”.

Laidlaw then told the witness that Brooks’ recollection of the lunch was that Cook was complaining mainly about the Daily Mail’s activities and how unfairly women were treated by the press compared to how a man in the same situation would be treated, to which the witness agreed. Laidlaw then suggested that Cook had told Brooks that Colin Montgomerie had been violent towards her during her marriage and asked if Brooks could “run with that story”. Cook replied “that is absolutely not true,” adding I “completely repute that”.

Laidlaw then asked the witness if there was any reason why she would have “a vendetta” against NotW. Cook denied that she had. The lawyer asked that, since she had a civil claim against the paper, did she “make these things up to get more money”. The witness denied she had made anything up or lied to the court. Laidlaw then presented a police note of the conversation she had with them in December 2011. In it the officer notes the witness had mentioned meeting Rebekah Brooks over an alleged affair she was having with a footballer, who was not named in court, and asked if that was correct. Cook said that was one of the “bugbears” she had at the time as the story was untrue. In that note, Laidlaw said, there is no mention of Brooks discussing phone-hacking.

Andrew Edis, QC for the Crown, then rose to re-examine the witness. He asked the witness if she could remember exactly what Brooks had said about the incident of domestic violence and had she said she had been arrested. Cook responded that Brooks had never mentioned anything about being arrested. Edis then asked if Cook had ever been offered money for getting a story in the paper. The witness said no, she had never accepted any payment as “she would never do that”. Edis asked the witness if she thought she would have had “no trouble getting her story in the paper”. At this point Justice Saunders intervened and said the question was “a bit leading,” so Edis withdrew it.

Edis then went through the previously quoted articles from Hello and the Daily Mail, asking Cook in turn what input she had in them? The witness told the court she had not given any interviews although she did speak to journalists who spoke to her at dinner parties. She said she gave short answers as she “did not want to be rude” and was worried journalists would invent stories. The pictures used had nothing to do with her and she had not helped the papers obtain them.

Finally Edis asked about the witness’s civil claim and asked did she make it before or after she spoke to the police. Cook replied it was after she gave her statement. The witness was asked why she claimed to have felt “humiliated”. She replied “because I had no private life whatsoever” and that she felt she was one of the individuals who Brooks was making fun of at the lunch.

The court then adjourned.

All of the accused deny all of the charges. The trial continues

Rebekah Brooks Phone-Hacking Trial

More from Rebekah Brooks

View all

Trending

Industry insights

View all
Add your own content +