Phone-hacking trial: 'Police and CPS covered up hacking – not Andy Coulson', jury hears
Andy Coulson and Clive Goodman
Proceedings resumed after lunch with Andy Coulson's barrister, Timothy Langdale QC, continuing his closing address to the jury. Counsel continued where he left off this morning by asking the jury to examine the evidence of prosecution witness Dan Evans, who testified that he played a recording of a hacked voicemail to Andy Coulson in 2004. Before he began, however, the barrister told the jury he was withdrawing his earlier point that police should have checked Coulson's electronic diary to check the dates he was in Brighton. It had been pointed out to him, Langdale said, that the police had no access to the diary as it was being held by News International.
The QC then reminded the jury that Evans had testified he had left the Sunday Mirror as he was not being allowed to do public interest stories. "Why did he go to the News of the World to hack phones?" Langdale said, adding that there was "no special skill needed to intercept voicemails, anyone could do it". So why, counsel asked, would Andy Coulson hire Evans as a "specialist" especially, he added, as "the News of the World had a perfectly good hacking service already, if the prosecution are to be believed". Langdale concluded his section on Evans by saying "you simply cannot rely on a single word he says".
The defence barrister then moved on to the evidence of former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman. Langdale asked the jury to consider Coulson's evidence that Goodman was a "bit of a tricky customer". The QC went on to remind the jury that Goodman said he had taken no pleasure in implicating Coulson. "You could have fooled me," Langdale said, adding that Goodman's QC's closing speech had spent an hour on the charges against his client and the rest "training the Goodman gun on Andy Coulson". The prosecution, Langdale said, had included Goodman on charge one, phone hacking, but never charged him with it. "He could say what he liked," defence counsel added, saying the former royal editor was a "surrogate prosecutor who can be deployed without any comeback against him".
The barrister then turned to Goodman's allegations that he was demoted and bullied. "This is a distortion of reality," Langdale said, pointing out that although newspaper offices were high pressure environments were the language could "get a bit crisp," emails shown to the jury proved that Goodman had never been demoted. The QC asked the jury to remember the former royal editor had been "touchy" and showed "prima donna behaviour in the witness box" and that chief prosecutor Andrew Edis had "lost his cool" and ended up "almost shouting" at Goodman during cross-examination. "He is no shrinking violet," Langdale suggested.
The barrister then turned to Goodman's evidence calling it "nonsense" and "deceptive humbug" and told the jury the former royal editor was a "fantisist". He went on to suggest that Coulson did not believe the emails from Goodman about paying policemen for telephone directories. If he did, the barrister suggested, "he would have told him to stop mentioning that on email". The QC asked the jury to consider the large sums of money for cash payments to contributors passing through Goodman's hands and noted that at the same time the former journalist stopped withdrawing money from cash machines. "You've only got Clive Goodman's word on how much money was given to whom," Langdale said. "If it suits his purpose Mr Goodman will tell any lie he can think of," the barrister added.
Langdale then reminded the jury that before Goodman had been taken ill he had been asked if he hacked any members of the royal family and he had said he did not remember. "His counsel told you that was a white lie, I'm going to say it was a whopper." The barrister told the jury that Goodman had been hacking Prince William, Prince Harry and Kate Middleton. "He said no one had asked him, well I had," Langdale said. "It's perhaps astonishing that you only heard about this hacking when the defence told you," he continued, adding that "the prosecution knew about it all along".
Court then took a short break.
When the jury returned to their seats Timothy Langdale QC turned to the evidence about the "Alexander project", which the prosecution claim was the codename for hacking members of the royal household in 2005/06. The barrister told the court that it was clear "Andy Coulson did not know it involved hacking or that it involved Glenn Mulcaire". He said: "If Andy Coulson knew that this so-called project involved paying Glenn Mulcaire £500 per week why did he agree to it because the prosecution say he already knew the paper was paying him £100,000 a year under contract, it makes no sense at all." The defence counsel suggested Coulson would only have agreed to pay a retainer unless he thought this was a new contact not "piggybacking information from the security services". The barrister told the jury this was another example of Goodman being "sly".
The defence barrister then had the jury read a "proof of evidence" Goodman had written in 2006 and asked them to note the difference from that and what he was saying now. "He was wriggling about," Langdale said, adding "he will tell serious lies to back up his false story". The court was then shown a transcript of a phone message left by Prince Harry on the mobile of a royal aide, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, asking for help with an essay. Goodman, Langdale told the court, had testified he had shown this to Coulson so why, the QC asked, "did he email himself a copy two days later, why would he do that if he already had a copy to show Andy Coulson?"
Langdale then went on to discuss events that took place after Clive Goodman was arrested in 2006. He reminded the jury that the former royal editor had alleged his then legal team had been working against him and for News International, who were paying for his defence and had been involved in a "dishonest cover-up". The barrister said there were two groups responsible for the 2006 trial not revealing the full truth about phone hacking: the police/CPS who chose to limit the charges and Goodman's legal team who decided not to blame anyone else at the News of the World. "It is ironic," Langdale said, "that it is they who are now alleging a cover-up when they are the ones who covered it up".
The barrister went on to say that Clive Goodman has "chosen to make stark accusations against his former solicitor Henri Brandman" and added "but what has come out is that he did not tell his own lawyers the full truth". Langdale noted to the court that the former royal editor had not criticised his barrister, John Kelsey-Fry, "which is a fly in the ointment of the cover-up theory". Langdale went on: "Does this evidence advance the case against Andy Coulson or is it evidence that Clive Goodman was threatening to lie about Andy Coulson?" He suggested to the jury: "You might think an organisation like News International would be as concerned about damaging allegations that are a lie as much as those that were true."
Court then rose for the day
All of the accused deny all of the charges, the trial continues