Phone-hacking trial: Judge warns jury not to be influenced by 'sentiment,' 'envy' or 'political elements"

The judge began by telling the jury that deciding the facts in the case was a matter for them, not him, and then read out the legal directions. He said he would tell them about the evidence that legally could be relevant to their considerations, but they would have to decide which parts were.

Saunders then went over the case against Rebekah Brooks, suggesting to the jury that the key element in convicting her of conspiracy was her "state of knowledge" of both phone hacking and payments to public officials. If the jury were sure she did agree to either, the judge said, they could find her guilty. He also noted that evidence given against Mark Hanna over a conversation he allegedly had about burning items in his garden for Rebekah Brooks was evidence against him, but could not be considered in relation to the charges against her.

Saunders then told the jury he had to direct them about lies, saying: "Lies play a bigger part in court proceedings than the do in everyday life." He reminded the jury that people did lie to cover up their guilt but they also lie for other reasons, out of panic or to help other people, "just because someone lies does not make them guilty". He did remind the jury, however, that they were entitled to take it into account. The same principle, Saunders said, applied to Rebekah Brooks saying she did not know about phone hacking. To find her guilty, Saunders said, the jury would have to be sure that she not only knew about phone hacking but agreed that it should continue, he said.

The judge then told the jury that despite the large number of emails they had seen various events and purges of the system had led to "millions being missing". The jury, Saunders said, should take into account that some of these might have led to new lines of inquiry. He also noted that some emails now relied on by the defence had not been disclosed by the police. "Some people might suggest that they did not do their job properly," he told the court, adding that there was no suggestion that this was deliberate.

Saunders then reminded the jury that all of the defendants had, at one point or another, refused to answer questions when interviewed by the police. He noted the words of the police caution, "you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something you later rely on in court", and said it was up to the jury if they wished to draw an adverse influence from this. The judge said the defendants had told the court they had acted on legal advice but they were "intelligent people who were used to making decisions" and the responsibility for not answering police questions was theirs. Saunders then apologised to the jury for the complexity of this direction as this matter was "incredibly difficult to explain in an intelligible way".

Saunders then went through which facts each defendant had not mentioned and noted that Charlie Brooks had given his reason for not answering questions as anger about the police arriving at his home at 4.45 am. The judge told the jury that the timing of the police operation was influenced by the fact that Charlie Brooks, by his own admission, had taken advantage of advanced notice of his wife's arrest the previous year to hide material. Saunders asked the jury to consider that when evaluating the timing of the police raid.

The judge then told the jury that he had finished the "boring legal directions" and would now move on to his review of the evidence. "My approach will be different from anyone else, it is no part of my job to persuade you to take a particular conclusion," he said, and advised them that they should "not decide the case on sentiment or emotion". He asked them to ignore the "abuse" directed at Rebekah Brooks, in particular, and any feelings of sympathy they may have for the defendants. "This is an important case, there has been a great deal of public interest in it and they have a right to know if senior executives at the paper were involved in phone hacking." He listed the "victims of hacking" and said that although Jonathan Caplan QC had said this was not a serious crime, justice applies to all crimes. He noted the case was at the Old Bailey as Southwark Crown court was too small to fit everyone in. Saunders said that the jury should also "ignore the political elements of the case".

The judge then reminded the jury "not to decide the case by envy as these people have had a lifestyle most of us could never dream of" but also not to be "dazzled by it". "If there have been wild theories," he went on, "ignore them". "Everyone in this country gets the same fair trial as everyone else," he added. "To do right by all manner of men without fear of favour." He noted there had been some humour in the case but the jury should not interpret that as meaning the issues in it were not serious.

Court then took a short break.

When the jury returned Saunders gave what he called a "thumbnail sketch" of the defendants, beginning with Rebekah Brooks whose career he described as "meteoritic" and noted she had been responsible for many high profile campaigns while editing the News of the World and the Sun. The judge said that Brooks' character witnesses had spoken highly of her and called her "sweet natured" and a "natural newspaper editor". Andy Coulson had been described as "honest and straightforward", Saunders said, and did work for children's charities. The judge then reminded the jury Stuart Kuttner's character witnesses, including a former archbishop of Canterbury, had called him "a man of integrity and complete loyalty". Saunders then went through the character evidence given in behalf of the other defendants, Cheryl Carter, Clive Goodman, Mark Hanna and Charlie Brooks.

The judge then went on to count one of the indictment, conspiracy to illegally intercept communications. He noted that there was "no doubt that phone hacking went on at the News of the World" and the "all important question" for the jury was if the defendants entered into an agreement that it take place, not simply that they knew about it. He again reminded the jury to be cautious about the evidence of Clive Goodman and Dan Evans that Andy Coulson agreed to them intercepting voicemails as both had already admitted hacking phones and may have a motive to implicate others. The judge then summarised both men's testimony to the court. To help the jury, the judge had a reference list of where to locate documents in their bundles relating to their evidence. "If it is helpful good, if not throw it in the bin," he added.

The judge then asked the jury to consider the different methods used to intercept voicemail. The first was a "platform" used by O2 and Orange which meant anyone hacking a phone would need to know the individual PIN number. Other telephone providers, Saunders said, "had a "default PIN" which if the user did not change it was the same for every customer. There was also a problem with "pay as you go" phones which were more difficult to hack as they did not have a "unique voicemail number" which, Saunders noted, caused problems for hacker Glenn Mulcaire trying to intercept the messages of former England football manager Sven Goran Eriksson.

Saunders then noted there was a dispute about how much phone hacking went on at the News of the World. It was clear Mulcaire was busy, he said, but not every hack would lead to a story. "You can't expect to find a message of devoted and undying love every time you hear a voicemail." He also asked the jury to remember that not every case of suspected hacking had been put in front of them and that there were only records for limited periods of the charge, there was no telephone data for the time when Rebekah Brooks was News of the World editor for example.

Court then rose for lunch