Phone-hacking trial: The hacker, the contract and short memories in newspapers
Stuart Kuttner
Proceedings resumed this afternoon to hear further evidence from former News of the World managing editor Stuart Kuttner, who is defending himself on one charge of involvement in a conspiracy to illegally intercept voicemails between 2002 and 2006. Andrew Edis QC returned to the question of voicemails left on the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler and recorded by a private detective employed by the newspaper. Kuttner told the court that when he was told about the messages his first reaction was to inform the police.
The court was then read a statement from Mark Hancocks, the owner of Monday's recruitment agency, one of whose employees had left a message on Milly Dowler's phone. In the statement Hancock said he received a call from Kuttner about the voicemail on the morning of 13 April 2002, while the police were not contacted until that evening. "Why did you call him before you called the police," the prosecutor asked. "I've made an admission that I made that call," Kuttner replied "but I have no recollection of making the call," he said.
The prosecuting barrister then moved on to the issue of the annual budget of the News of the World and asked Kutter about his role in this. The defendant told the court he would work with the editor and then go to News International's board of directors in New York with a figure to be approved. Once this was agreed, Kuttner and the editor would then decide how to split the money between the newspaper's various departments. Kuttner was then shown a page from his 2001/2002 budget that showed there were only nine contributors who had a retainer of over £100,000 a year. "That's quite a lot of money," Edis suggested, and would require "careful scrutiny"
The court was then shown emails from Kuttner to department heads about their spending discussing the "difficult time" the paper was having financially as it was £8m over budget. Edis asked the witness to confirm that at the same time a contract was signed with convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire agreeing to payments totalling £92,000 a year. "I have no recollection at all," the defendant replied. The court was shown emails in which Kuttner queries a £7000 payment for a story about the killers of James Bulger. "Did you know this money went to Mulcaire," Edis asked. "I don't remember," the defendant responded, blaming "the lapse of time".
The prosecutor suggested to Kuttner that in this period "times were quite hard" and he would be keeping a close eye on spending as this was a "worrying state of affairs". "I did my best," the defendant responded, telling the court that much of the overspend was due to the paper's campaign for "Sarah's Law". Kuttner agreed he had emailed all staff warning them to stay within strict spending limits and that any exceptional items be reported to him. The defence QC pointed out that while Mulcaire used various aliases and company names "all of the payments went to the same address, your office must have known that". "I don't know if anyone was conscious that they all operated from the same address," the defendant replied.
Edis then asked the witness about Mulcaire's contract and asked as it was not part of the budget it must have required the approval of the editor. "I don't know about that," Kuttner replied. "I don't see this deal with an inquiry agent in that context," he told the court. Edis showed the court forms showing Kuttner had approved each weekly payment for Mulcaire. "You knew exactly what was going on," the defendant said. "They were part of thousands of payments I had no reason to study each one." Kuttner was then asked why Mulcaire continued to be paid even after he had been arrested for phone hacking in 2006. "We were in a contractual relationship and there had been no trial or conviction," Kuttner replied. "He was not providing any services for you any more," Edis said. "Were you paying him money to keep him quiet," he asked Kuttner. "They had been tried or sentenced so our view was to continue making payments." The prosecution QC then pointed out to the witness that the contract could have been stopped with two months notice. "That's your legal view," the defendant replied.
The prosecutor then asked the former managing editor to confirm that in 2006 he had been told by the paper's royal editor Clive Goodman that another journalist, who we cannot name for legal reasons, was also involved in phone hacking. "What investigation did you carry out," he asked. "We called in outside lawyers and there was a series of meetings and consultations," Kuttner replied. "There wasn't any investigation at all was there," the prosecution counsel suggested, "despite you being told he was at it too".
Court then took a short break.
When court resumed Judge Saunders asked Edis how much longer he was planning to take "as it's been a hard week" and as the answer to most of his questions seems to be that Mr Kuttner could not recall, was it possible to go rather more quickly. The prosecution barrister said he would do his best and asked the witness if, when he found about the phone hacking in 2006, he made the connection with Milly Dowler's voicemails "no I did not," Kuttner replied. The court was then shown a document from 2005 in which Kuttner proposes cutting Mulcaire's budget before deciding to keep it at the same level. "Was it you who decided to retain his services?" "No it was not," the defendant replied. Edis suggested that "it was around this time that Mulcaire was providing pretty good results wasn't it". Kuttner again said he had no recollection of those discussions. "You must have been keeping a eagle eye on Goodman at this time given what had been going on," the barrister suggested. "Sometimes last week's disagreements are next week's front page stories," Kuttner said. "We sometimes have short memories in newspapers," the defendant added.
Edis then moved on to what he described as his last subject and showed the witness a payment approval for £750 signed by the defendant for what the barrister called a "stolen book". He asked the witness if he knew that. "Absolutely not," Kuttner replied. "I had no reason to think that," he added, saying: "If anyone came to me asking for a payment to a royal policeman I would have told them to clear off." Edis asked the witness that if this would have happened it would have been evidence of criminal conduct by an employee. "So, you would just have told them to clear off, not called the police?" "I don't know," Kuttner replied. "Perhaps you would have just have called Lord Black to give them some training," the prosecution barrister suggested.
The prosecutor then showed Kuttner an email in which Clive Goodman tells him that two of his contacts are "in uniform" and "you, me, them and the editor would all be in jail if they were discovered". "I don't remember getting that mail," the defendant said. The witness was then shown an email from Clive Goodman to Andy Coulson which states. "Stuart has told me the decision about matey's weekly payment." Kuttner said he did not know who matey was, adding he could not recall the email. Matey, Edis told the court, was a codename for hacker Glenn Mulcaire. Kuttner told the court that he received a "bomabardmnent" of emails he received from Goodman.
The prosecution QC ended by suggesting that "of all the senior staff at the News of the World, you were the one who had the biggest role in paying Mulcaire, and you were responsible for splitting his payments into weekly instalments to hide him". "I completely reject that," the defendant replied. The prosecutor said, "You are saying you were paying him £100,000 a year for doing nothing as there is not a single document, his only activity was criminal phone hacking and you knew that." Kuttner replied: "Such conduct, such behaviour is as remote from my concept of newspapers as it is possible to be." Edis put it to the witness: "It was your job to know these things." Kuttner told the court that he did a good job and "received the warmest letter from Rupert Murdoch on my retirement." The prosecution then ended their cross examination.
David Spens QC, Kuttner's counsel, then rose to briefly re-examine his client. The defendant confirmed that he thought Mulcaire had to be paid after his arrest for "contractual reasons" and that he agreed to employ him originally as he thought using one private detective agency would save money. Spens showed the court Mulcaire's contract to confirm it was not signed by Kuttner but by then-news editor Greg Miskiw. The defence QC then told the court he had a number of statements to read. "Not today you won't," Justice Saunders said, and adjourned the court until Monday.
All of the defendants deny all of the charges, the trial continues