Phone-hacking trial: Police defend 4.30am search of Brooks' home

The defence QC gave the officer a list of computer equipment taken from Brooks' office and put it to him that Brooks had left all of her hardware in the office upon her resignation from News International. Pritchard replied that it was his understanding that none of these computers appeared to be the ones that Brooks was using at that time. "Correct me if I'm wrong," he said to Laidlaw.

The barrister then asked if the officer believed he had given the magistrate the "full picture" in relation to the search warrant, and suggested he had not. Laidlaw said he had not told the magistrate about the computers taken from News International in July 2011. Pritchard responded that this warrant was in relation to an investigation into a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice so the previous search was not relevant. "It was what we did not have in police possession we wanted, not what we already had," he added.

Laidlaw then asked the officer if he told the magistrate that Rebekah Brooks had told the police she would fully co-operate in any investigation and had sent a letter saying she would facilitate any search required. The officer replied that in this case Brooks' "words were not reflected in the deeds" and that it was his belief that documents and computers continued to go missing. Laidlaw then asked if the officer had told the magistrate that police had searched Brooks' Oxfordshire home previously. Pritchard agreed that "in hindsight that could have been included".

The QC then showed Pritchard an email from Brooks' solicitors that offered the police a meeting with their client at their convenience, the officer said he had not seen the mail and when asked if he was aware of the contents Pritchard replied: "Obviously not as I hadn't seen it". The DC told the court there were, at this point, between 50 and 60 officers involved in Operation Weeting, the police inquiry into phone-hacking at the News of the World, and he had been unaware of an email from another officer to Brooks' solicitor asking about the location of notebooks and diaries removed from the News International archive. The officer also confirmed he had not seen the solicitor's reply which said Brooks' did have the notebooks and diaries in question and consented to have them given to the police to examine. Two police officers, Laidlaw told the court, did review the material in January 2012 and took away items they found relevant. DC Pritchard responded by saying: "It was what we hadn't found we were interested in."

Mr Saunders, counsel for Charlie Brooks, then questioned the witness. The barrister asked the officer if he had spoken to anyone involved in the previous search of Jubilee Barn and Pritchard responded saying he only knew that nothing had been seized. Pritchard confirmed he had not heard any officer describe the place as a "holiday home". Pritchard also confirmed he did not know Charlie Brooks had written a racing column in the Daily Telegraph for 10 years and was countryside editor of the paper. The officer agreed that his statement on the application that Charlie Brooks was not a journalist and that his notebooks were not protected by privilege was therefore incorrect.

Mr Laidlaw then asked for the jury to leave the court so he could raise a legal matter.

The next witness called by the prosecution was detective inspector Stephen McCabe. The officer told the court he was deputy to the senior investigating officer in the hacking inquiry and Operation Sasha, the investigation into the alleged cover up that followed. McCabe was asked about the application for the search warrant discussed by the previous witness and confirmed this was carried out under his direction.

Jonathan Laidlaw QC, for Rebekah Brooks, then cross-examined the inspector. He began by questioning him on the events of 15 July 2011 when Brooks resigned from News International and the officer confirmed that the police had been "forewarned" by senior management that this was about to happen. He did disagree with the suggestion that police had asked for Brooks to be "escorted from the building" as this was something they had no powers over and would be rather "harsh". McCabe said his understanding was that police had no power to order a search of her office but permission was sought and received to do so.

The inspector told the court that the arrangement made was that police would secure computer equipment of interest and this would then be taken to secure storage. A firm employed by News International would then examine the contents and upload anything relevant to a database called "NOMAD" that police would have "controlled access" to. The officer confirmed no request was made to look at Brooks' paper files stored by Cheryl Carter as, at the time, the officers did not "understand the role of a personal assistant".

The officer told the court that later attempts to rectify this situation were difficult as the material was later divided. In 2012 they did however discover "filing lists" of what material had been there and that allowed them to hone their search. Some of the documents had been returned to Brooks and later stored at her solicitor's office. In January 2012 Mr McBride, the defendant's solicitor, had emailed McCabe offering access to the documents, an exercise characterised by the judge as "Scotsmen writing to each other", which led to laughter in court. Officers then attended the lawyer's office and spent four days examining the material.

The defence QC then moved on to the March 2012 search warrants and had the witness inspect the original application form. McCabe confirmed he was aware of the application and had reviewed it before it was submitted. Laidlaw put it to the officer that the document did not "give the magistrate the full picture" of the situation and asked him if it should have included a note of previous searches of same properties. The inspector responded that police believed material was being concealed from them and, as there was an allegation of a cover-up, he believed that the application was "balanced" and a "full and comprehensive picture" had been given. Brooks' barrister then asked the inspector if he should have informed the magistrate of his client's offer to co-operate. Police, the witness told the court, had only been "given access to what the defendant allowed us" and he did not consider this relevant to the application.

The QC then moved on to ask why the police search had taken place at 4.30am in the morning as he knew there was a "very young baby" at the property. Inspector McCabe said he had considered this, but on that day they were conducting multiple simultaneous arrests and as Mark Hanna started work early in the morning that was the time he had chosen. McCabe added that he was a father himself and briefed the officers to be sensitive. Laidlaw asked if the inspector knew that Brooks' baby daughter's basket had been searched. McCabe replied that the police showed no "fear or favour" during searches and the Brookses were treated no differently from any other suspects. There were practical reasons for the timing of the search, the officer told the court, and there was no intention to "humiliate" the Brookses or garner publicity for the investigation.

Andrew Edis QC, for the prosecution, then briefly re-examined the witness. Inspector McCabe told the jury that one of the reasons for obtaining the warrant was the events of the previous July when, he said, there had been a conspiracy to hide evidence from the police by Charlie and Rebekah Brooks after her arrest. Justice Saunders then asked the officer why he had applied for a warrant when they knew they had the power to search the premises after they had arrested people. McCabe told the court that they needed the powers in case they arrived at the property and there was no-one present.

The court then rose for lunch.

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