Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

by Guest 28.10.13 9:07

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Crime Correspondent
8:23AM GMT 28 Oct 2013

More than two years after the phone-hacking scandal led to the closure of the News of the World, two of its former editors are due to go on trial today in one of the most high profile criminal cases in years.

Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are among eight people who will face a range of charges, when the five month long trial gets underway at the Old Bailey today.

Mrs Brooks - who as well as being News of the World and Sun editor, was also the Chief Executive Officer of News International - is facing charges of conspiracy to intercept voicemails, conspiracy to cause misconduct in public office News of the World reporters hacked phones while she was editor, the second charges relate to allegations that journalists made corrupt payments to public officials and the final set of charges relate to allegations that she worked with others to try to cover up any wrongdoing.

Mr Coulson, who was Prime Minister David Cameron’s director of communications, is facing charges related to phone hacking and also to allegations connected to corrupt payments, while he was editor of the News of the World.

Joining them in Court 12 of the Old Bailey, will be the News of the World’s former managing editor, Stuart Kuttner, the paper’s former head of news, Ian Edmondson and the tabloid’s former royal editor, Clive Goodman.

Also on trial are Mrs Brooks’ former personal assistant, Cheryl Carter, News International’s former security chief, Mark Hanna and Mrs Brooks’ racehorse trainer husband, Charlie Brooks.

The trial, before Mr Justice Saunders, is the first of three trials emanating from the phone-hacking scandal.
The first job will be to empanel a jury, which is expected to take up most of the first day.

Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, is expected to begin setting out the Crown’s case later this week.

Special facilities have been laid on at the Central Criminal Court to help cater for the 70 journalists from around the world who are expected to cover the lengthy trial.

Those accredited journalists unable to sit in Court 12 to watch proceedings will be housed in an overspill court with a live feed.

Due to the huge interest in the trial on both sides of the Atlantic, the judge and the Attorney General will be keen to ensure nothing occurs to jeopardise the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

The judge is expected to warn jurors to avoid Twitter during the trial

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by plebgate 28.10.13 9:23

Rubbing hands with relish here. Can't wait. The trial is expected to go on well into next year it was reported today. BRING IT ON.

by Guest 28.10.13 10:30

plebgate wrote:Rubbing hands with relish here. Can't wait. The trial is expected to go on well into next year it was reported today. BRING IT ON.

The BBC are reporting on trial, they said today will be taken up with jury selection.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Who?What?Where? 28.10.13 23:51

A five month trial?

The lawyers involved in this must be rubbing their hand's together with glee. The media also.

Kerching, kerching, kerching.

Xmas has come early this year, for them.

I guess it must be something to do with global warming and co2 emissions...that sort of stuff.... and nonsense.

Bird's of a feather, really, do tend, to flock together.

by Guest 30.10.13 7:48

And so it begins

Phone-hacking jury warned of prejudice risk in trial of Brooks and Coulson

British justice also on trial, says judge as he tells jurors to ignore comments they may come across in all media

The jury in the News of the World phone-hacking trial has been told that British justice is on trial in addition to Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and their co-defendants.

Mr Justice Saunders told the jury of nine women and three men at the Old Bailey in London that the case had attracted "perhaps an unprecedented amount of publicity" across all media, and that some content, particularly on the internet, was inaccurate, offensive, demeaning and ill-informed.

Saunders said some of the eight defendants were well known public figures and some had been written about on social media, but he directed the jurors to ignore comments they may come across during the trial, which is expected to last up to six months. The prosecution is expected to open its case at 2pm on Wednesday.

He drew particular attention to the latest issue of Private Eye published on Tuesday. Shortly after being sworn in, the jury was shown the magazine. "It bears a picture of Rebekah Brooks on the cover. It's meant to be satire. You ignore it," Saunders said. "It has no serious input and it's not relevant to your consideration. It's one of those things which you will have to ignore – a joke, that in the circumstances of today is a joke in especially bad taste."

more [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Naughty Private Eye laughat

by plebgate 30.10.13 8:15

Thanks CB.

There have been lots of high profile crim. cases over the years, with plenty of media/internet attention given to them - so let's hope that we do not get half way through this trial and somebody "accidentally" makes a comment that then prevents it from going ahead.

Wouldn't surprise me if media monitors aren't scouring t'internet as we type looking for examples.

Looking forward to proceedings, as I'm sure many are.

by Guest 30.10.13 8:23

plebgate wrote:Thanks CB.

There have been lots of high profile crim. cases over the years, with plenty of media/internet attention given to them - so let's hope that we do not get half way through this trial and somebody "accidentally" makes a comment that then prevents it from going ahead.

Wouldn't surprise me if media monitors aren't scouring t'internet as we type looking for examples.

Looking forward to proceedings, as I'm sure many are.

Wouldn't suprise me either about media monitors plebgate, but we all know to be so so careful with our comments.

by plebgate 30.10.13 8:28

Yes we all do CB, let's hope twitter/facebook also know. We know from the past that people have been reported to the police about some comments on those sites. Definitely would not surprise me to learn that this will happen here.

by **PeterMac** 30.10.13 8:51

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The independent went a little further ! ! !

Mr Justice Saunders told the jury that it was “absolutely vital” that they decide the outcome of the trial only on the evidence heard in court.

During his warning he held up a copy of this month’s Private Eye magazine, which showed a picture of Ms Brooks under the headline “Halloween Special” and a sub-heading that said, “Horror witch costume withdrawn from shops”. Mr Justice Saunders, commenting on the previous publicity surrounding the case, said: “Unfortunately Private Eye has seen fit today to put out [its] November edition.

“You will undoubtedly see it on the news-stands, so I can show it to you. It bears a picture of Rebekah Brooks on the cover. It’s meant to be satire.”

He directed the jury to ignore it, saying it had “no serious input” and was “not relevant” to the deliberations. Although describing the magazine’s cover as a joke, he said that “a joke in the circumstances of today is a joke in especially bad taste”.

Naughty judge. He's got them on side right from the start. How will any of them be able to look at her without conjuring up that image ?

by Smokeandmirrors 30.10.13 9:13

There has been a greetings card for sale from the Private Eye range for sale for quite a long time with a picture of RB on it with the caption of "Hogwarts new teacher of the Dark Arts" or something very similar

by Guest 30.10.13 9:23

PeterMac wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The independent went a little further ! ! !
Mr Justice Saunders told the jury that it was “absolutely vital” that they decide the outcome of the trial only on the evidence heard in court.

During his warning he held up a copy of this month’s Private Eye magazine, which showed a picture of Ms Brooks under the headline “Halloween Special” and a sub-heading that said, “Horror witch costume withdrawn from shops”. Mr Justice Saunders, commenting on the previous publicity surrounding the case, said: “Unfortunately Private Eye has seen fit today to put out [its] November edition.

“You will undoubtedly see it on the news-stands, so I can show it to you. It bears a picture of Rebekah Brooks on the cover. It’s meant to be satire.”

He directed the jury to ignore it, saying it had “no serious input” and was “not relevant” to the deliberations. Although describing the magazine’s cover as a joke, he said that “a joke in the circumstances of today is a joke in especially bad taste”.
Naughty judge. He's got them on side right from the start. How will any of them be able to look at her without conjuring up that image ?

Yes he was naughty, how could anyone forget what they are shown in a court of law?

by Guest 30.10.13 9:30

Smokeandmirrors wrote:There has been a greetings card for sale from the Private Eye range for sale for quite a long time with a picture of RB on it with the caption of "Hogwarts new teacher of the Dark Arts" or something very similar

Love their sense of humour, Hogwarts couldn't get any one more experienced big grin

by **PeterMac** 30.10.13 12:19

The Judge has already said this is OK.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by Guest 30.10.13 12:52

PeterMac wrote:The Judge has already said this is OK.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Thanks PeterMac, first time I've seen it. If the Judge has said it's ok could we expect more from PI?

by sallypelt 30.10.13 12:58

Cherry Blossom wrote:
PeterMac wrote:The Judge has already said this is OK.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
Thanks PeterMac, first time I've seen it. If the Judge has said it's ok could we expect more from PI?

Personally, I would like to see this trail go ahead without comment from the public. All that discussion will do is give them the excuse to say they can't have a fair trial. So, nothing we can say will do anything other than jeopardise the trial.

Edited to add, but I LOVE Private Eye, and there's nothing wrong with the front page. It's typical Private Eye. All one can question is the timing. lol!

by **PeterMac** 30.10.13 16:07

Three news desk editors have just pleaded GUILTY.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mr Edis said Mulcaire pleaded guilty to conspiracy to unlawfully intercept mobile phone voicemail messages in November 2006. Earlier this year, in these proceedings, he also admitted three counts of conspiracy to commit phone hacking, along with a count of phone hacking, he added.
The barrister said that Miskiw, Weatherup and Thurlbeck had also each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to illegally access voicemails.
He said: "Now what we say about that is, using all of that information that I've just given about those pleas, that there was a conspiracy which involved a significant number of people and it was quite a substantial conspiracy.
"And that may help you to decide now. Because those names, they knew. So who else knew?"

Not good for the others.

by plebgate 30.10.13 18:12

Well that didn't take long. Agree, doesn't look good for the others.

by **PeterMac** 30.10.13 18:17

Interesting that the prosecution has been allowed to bring that up in the opening speeches. Normally you only hear right at the end that others pleaded.
I suppose that because it is a Conspiracy it is essential that everyone's activities, admitted or not, are included.

by sonic72 30.10.13 18:36

Surely the editors on trial would have questioned the source of information that was extracted from the phone hacking?

by Guest 30.10.13 19:25

Just a note of warning, this trial is ongoing now, so we should be very careful what we say. We can only say, what is reported on the case.

by loopzdaloop 30.10.13 23:36

What do you mean 'do not post anything on here that would prejudice a fair trial'.

In what way?

by Guest 30.10.13 23:43

loopzdaloop wrote:What do you mean 'do not post anything on here that would prejudice a fair trial'.

In what way?

Are you talking to me loopzdaloop. It was mentioned today on twitter, that you are not allowed to speculate etc.

In [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], sub judice, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is under [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or being considered by a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The term may be used [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
In [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]}, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]} and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]} it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] proceedings. This is particularly true in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by russiandoll 31.10.13 14:28

just from the courtroom, Brooks and Coulson had a 6 yr affair from 2004.

by tiny 31.10.13 14:44

russiandoll wrote:just from the courtroom, Brooks and Coulson had a 6 yr affair from 2004.

Tiny have deleted as speculation....see my post further up. You can only mention that what has already been said at the trial.

by plebgate 31.10.13 16:22

russiandoll wrote:just from the courtroom, Brooks and Coulson had a 6 yr affair from 2004.

Thanks RD. This is just the start.

I wonder if his wife knew, they were arm in arm going into court yesterday.

Brooks was married to Ross Kemp I think at that time?

I reckon there are a few worried people waiting to see what is going to come out and I for one will lap it up. titter

by russiandoll 31.10.13 16:28

Sky just posted and read out part of a letter or e mail to AC, very personal about how important the relationship was to her.

There was a brief mention about the handling of the Milly Dowler case. I think this trial will be an embarrassment for a few people and there will be an embarrassment of riches in what dirty little secrets are to be revealed.

up to 6 months hey, that means some hefty barristers' bills, what do some charge, £ 800 per hour?

by tiny 31.10.13 16:32

tiny wrote:
russiandoll wrote:just from the courtroom, Brooks and Coulson had a 6 yr affair from 2004.
Tiny have deleted as speculation....see my post further up. You can only mention that what has already been said at the trial.

Sorry, but stil,l[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Bobby Peru 31.10.13 19:20

I'd never thought I'd live to utter these words: poor Ross Kemp!

by Bobby Peru 31.10.13 19:23

tiny wrote:
tiny wrote:
russiandoll wrote:just from the courtroom, Brooks and Coulson had a 6 yr affair from 2004.
Tiny have deleted as speculation....see my post further up. You can only mention that what has already been said at the trial.
Sorry, but stil,l[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What is not speculation is that somebody thought LOL in a text message meant 'lots of love'. Tally ho!

by Guest 04.11.13 11:35

Live updates

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

In the spirit of completeness

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Breaking news

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY