Rebekah Brooks bodyguard David Johnson is charged

by Guest 03.05.13 15:02

3 May 2013 Last updated at 12:37

Rebekah Brooks bodyguard David Johnson is charged

Rebekah Brooks bodyguard David Johnson is charged _67399793_64608653

It is alleged that the
bodyguard conspired with others, including Rebekah Brooks

A bodyguard for former News
International chief executive Rebekah Brooks has been charged with conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.
The charges against David Johnson, 47, relate to inquiries into phone hacking
and payments to public officials.

Mr Johnson is accused of conspiring to hide computers and other items from
police between 15 and 19 July 2011.

He was bailed to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 8 May 2013.

It is alleged that Mr Johnson - self-employed of London Road, Mitcham, Surrey
- conspired with six people, including the former newspaper executive and her
husband Charlie, who have already been charged.

The charges were made under Operation Sacha - Scotland Yard's investigation
into allegations of perverting the course of justice relating to Operation
Weeting, its phone hacking inquiry, and Operation Elveden, which is
investigating alleged payments to public officials by journalists.

Senior CPS lawyer Gregor McGill said: "Following a careful review of the
evidence, we have concluded that David Johnson, a security professional who was
employed to provide a protection service to Rebekah Brooks, should be charged
with an offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.

"It is alleged that between 15 and 19 July 2011 Mr Johnson conspired to
pervert the course of justice by concealing computers and other items from the
Metropolitan Police Service during its investigation into allegations of phone
hacking and the corruption of public officials by journalists."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22399267

by **PeterMac** 03.05.13 15:40

"Clang" !

by Guest 03.05.13 16:01

PeterMac wrote:"Clang" !

***
That was so loud and clear, that I could hear the door slam over here ....

by aiyoyo 03.05.13 16:30

He should get a severe form of punishment because it's more than perverting the course of justice. It's about hiding and destroying crucial evidence.

by **PeterMac** 03.05.13 16:59

aiyoyo wrote:He should get a severe form of punishment because it's more than perverting the course of justice. It's about hiding and destroying crucial evidence.

In English law that is one of the elements of the offence.
• Intimidating or threatening a case witness or juror
• Intimidating or threatening a judge
• Disposing of or fabricating of evidence (this can be written evidence as well as physical - false claims of rape fall into this category)

One exacerbating factor might be of someone told someone to do something, in which case it turns into a Conspiracy to pervert. (cf. Huhne / Pryce)

And the only defence he may have is coercion / duress - she made me do it ! (cf. Huhne / Pryce !)
The others -
Intoxication
Necessity
are unlikely to be played.

by aiyoyo 03.05.13 17:15

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:He should get a severe form of punishment because it's more than perverting the course of justice. It's about hiding and destroying crucial evidence.
In English law that is one of the elements of the offence.
• Intimidating or threatening a case witness or juror
• Intimidating or threatening a judge
• Disposing of or fabricating of evidence (this can be written evidence as well as physical - false claims of rape fall into this category)

One exacerbating factor might be of someone told someone to do something, in which case it turns into a Conspiracy to pervert. (cf. Huhne / Pryce)

And the only defence he may have is coercion / duress - she made me do it ! (cf. Huhne / Pryce !)
The others -
Intoxication
Necessity
are unlikely to be played.

This is more than just perjury to pervert the course of justice.
It practically tantamount to abetting and/or colluding with offender/s in the crime of destruction of evidence. It's called accessory to a crime or partner in crime. A defence of coercion and/or duress may be used as argument but wont carry much weigh in the circumstances because at the end of the day no one points a gun to force him to cooperate. He must have known full well what he was doing.