The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Andy Coulson Phone-Hacking Trial Dan Evans

Phone-hacking trial: Andy Coulson questioned about Dan Evans phone-hacking claims

By James Doleman

April 29, 2014 | 9 min read

    Court: Andy Coulson

  • "Special checks" meant nothing to me, former editor says
  • "Office cat" knew about phone-hacking, prosecutor suggests
  • "We didn't have an office cat", Coulson responds
  • Defendant heard discussion of using "telephone traffic" in office
  • The trial of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and four others at London's central criminal court resumed this morning to hear further cross-examination of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, who has pleaded not guilty to one charge of conspiring to illegally intercept communications and two of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.

    The chief prosecution barrister, Andrew Edis QC, began the morning by asking the defendant about an email in which a journalist, who we cannot name, asked that payments to private detective Glenn Mulcaire be stopped but was overruled. "That was an editorial decision," Edis suggested, and asked: "Who was the editor at the time?"

    "I have no memory of being involved in that," Coulson replied, stating that there were others at the paper who had the authority to make that decision and he did not generally get involved in budgetary matters. "Were you incompetent at your job?" the prosecutor asked. "That wasn't seen as part of my job," the former editor responded. "I was not employed to run the day to day budget," he added.

    The court was then shown a 2005 email from Coulson to senior staff in which he expressed concern about the quality of the scoops the paper was getting and said that money would be made available for good stories. "That is you managing the budget," Edis suggested. "I would have asked the managing editor to draw on the contingency fund," the former editor replied. The email went on to say that the three big successful stories that year had been "Beckham, Sven and Blunkett". "Big stories mattered to you,"Edis said. "Not as much as at the Sun, but I would not dispute that, no," Coulson replied.

    Edis then asked the defendant about the News of the World's investigation into then home secretary Charles Clarke. Coulson told the court he had not been informed about it at the time. "It wasn't a secret," Edis said. "You were sent an email about it."

    "It didn't register with me at the time," the defendant replied. Edis asked why, in the email, journalist Neville Thurlbeck asked for Clarke's assistant's mobile telephone number. "Perhaps he wanted to call her," Coulson replied. "You know what Thurlbeck did with the last home secretary's mobile numbers, did that not ring an alarm bell - 'Oh dear, there's Neville doing that awful thing again'?" Edis asked Coulson. "No, it didn't," the defendant replied.

    The defendant was then asked about former News of the World Royal editor Clive Goodman's contacts with the police, giving the example of a story which claimed the Queen had a "row with palace cops". "That could have come from anyone," Coulson replied. "It didn't come from the Queen," Edis said, and asked if Coulson thought Goodman had contacts in the Royal protection police. "As a general rule I didn't ask about sources," the former editor replied. "There are sources' names all over your correspondence at the News of the World," Edis suggested. Coulson replied that he didn't know who Goodman's sources were and didn't ask.

    The former editor was then asked about an email which stated that a journalist, Dan Evans, was carrying out "special checks" on a story about Sienna Miller. "Special checks means nothing to me," Coulson replied. "The office cat knew what Evans was doing," Edis said. "Were you the only person who didn't know?"

    "We didn't have an office cat," the former editor responded. "Special checks meant nothing to me," he reiterated.

    Coulson was then asked if in 2005 the News of the World was interested in the "young Royals". The former editor told the court: "They were engaging with the media."

    "You've been a spin doctor," Edis replied, "so you know how it works." The court was then shown a selection of stories about Prince Harry and William and an email from Goodman that said in part "Chelsy is driving Harry nuts.... we've been have a very quiet look at this independently checking" how many texts Harry was sending and receiving. "What did that mean to you?" Edis asked "It could have meant he had a source who was very close to Harry," Coulson replied. "This email is telling you in very plain terms that Mr Goodman has access to private telephone records," Edis suggested. "From this distance I accept that," the former editor replied, but added that "the whole email is full of other information that is more interesting". Coulson then told the court that there was talk at the paper about obtaining "telephone traffic" and there was confusion about the data protection act "across the industry".

    Edis suggested to Coulson:"You don't need to be a lawyer, you just need to use a phone to know that a journalist should not be able to go through your billing."

    "I accept I should have looked into it more," Coulson replied, but said that he "could not remember" ever putting phone records in the paper. "I didn't apply my mind to it but I absolutely accept I should have looked into it, it didn't happen too often," he added. "Surely one is once too many," the prosecution barrister said. "I take responsibility as editor," the defendant replied.

    Coulson was then asked why he asked Goodman "where we get this" over a Royal wedding story. "That was an important question," Edis suggested. "I don't remember why I asked, I might just have been curious," the former editor said. Court then took a short break.

    When the jury returned, Andrew Edis QC for the prosecution asked the witness if he disputed that a journalist at the News of the World, Dan Evans, was hacking. "No, I don't," Coulson replied, but said he was never informed about it nor was it ever discussed in an editorial conference. The defendant was asked about Evans' testimony that he had played a tape of a voicemail from the phone of actor Daniel Craig from Sienna Miller and Coulson told the court this did not happen and that he had been at the Labour party conference on the day Evans claimed this occurred.

    The prosecution brought into evidence his desk diary where his meetings with senior figures from the Labour party that day had "cxl" written next to them. "That means cancelled," Edis suggested. "It may have meant a different time was arranged, but I do not remember," Coulson replied, adding: "I don't think I would have cancelled." Edis said: "If they had cancelled, you would have plenty of time to go into the office, but you don't remember?"

    "I don't recall how that day played out, no," the defendant replied, but denied again that he was ever played a tape of a voicemail by Evans.

    The court was then shown an email in which a senior journalist stated that Evans had carried out "special checks" on the Sienna Miller story. "What did you think that meant?" the defendant was asked. "I don't think I applied a lot of thought to what Dan Evans had done," Coulson replied. Edis pointed to another part of the email which mentioned that Evans had brought in stories about Jade Goody and Stephen Gerard. "You knew precisely what he had done," Edis suggested, telling the court that Evans had hacked both Goody's and an associate of Gerard's voicemails. "I didn't know, no," the former editor replied.

    Prosecution counsel then asked the defendant about a £500 retainer he authorised in 2005 for Goodman to pay to a source close to the "young Royals". "Were they fair game?" Edis asked. "I did not consider there were no limits, but there was a lot of interest in the heir to the throne," Coulson replied. Edis asked if paying a source a retainer was unusual. "I can't think of any other example but I saw this as a trial period, not a long term arrangement," the former editor replied.

    The prosecutor suggested that a retainer meant "you had to pay a source even if they did not get you a story, that's why no-one in their right mind would do it". "I was in my right mind," Coulson responded, and told the jury that he was attempting to assist Goodman to get stories as he had been "applying some pressure on Clive". The defendant said he did not ask Goodman who the source was and he had no memory of discussing it with him. "The records show I paid very little interest in this and I was the one who ended it," he added.

    Coulson was then asked why he had agreed to extend the retainer for another month. "It was only another £500," he said, before being corrected by Edis, who told him "£500 a week is £2,000." The defendant was then shown a transcript of a voicemail made by Goodman, left by Prince Harry on the phone of a Royal aide asking for help with an essay he was set to write at Sandhurst. Coulson said he had never seen the transcript but could not remember sending an email asking Goodman: "How can we stand the story up?"

    "Something must have been said to you about the evidence to support it," Edis said. "I don't remember what I was told about it," Coulson replied, adding: "My level of interest in this story was not high, there were 30 other stories I was more interested in."

    Court then rose for lunch.

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

    Andy Coulson Phone-Hacking Trial Dan Evans

    More from Andy Coulson

    View all

    Trending

    Industry insights

    View all
    Add your own content +