Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today

[uk66fastback]

Slaav said:

There is always the possibility that the CPS lawyers mess up what should be a decent case?

But that shouldn't happen at this level surely? I presumed there are some of the brightest legal minds in the country in the CPS and they see these cases from every angle WELL in advance of a court case or decision to prosecute, or am I mistaken?

These ain't trainees, these are (I hope) the top boys (and girls)!

With salaries to match

[Oakey]

Steffan said:

Not followed the case therefore no idea personally. What do you think? Clearly the Jury had their doubts. Depends on the presentation of the case.

http://news.sky.com/story/1214683/dale-cregans-mother-cleared-over-police-info

Basically, a neighbour reports a suspicious car during the Cregan manhunt and reports it to the police. They raid Cregans mothers home as a result. Allegedly, the girl in the story checked the database to see who had made the call to the police and passed that persons details on to her boyfriend who is a friend of Cregans mother, she then went to the neighbours house screaming he was a 'grass'.

Personally I think it stinks.

[carinaman]

Oakey said:

http://news.sky.com/story/1214683/dale-cregans-mot...

Personally I think it stinks.

It does. The 'girl' is the daughter of a police Inspector. That her father is a police Inspector reminds me of Vonhosen comparing a police officer doing a ton forty with a detainee in the car with a 21 year old doing over a ton in his daddy's Porsche to show that speeding doesn't necessarily mean Dangerous Driving. I don't know where that Inspector's daughter supplying that information sits with the 'police family'?

Greater Manchester Police leak information like I vent in SP&L. You'd have to be on drugs to be an informant for Greater Manchester Police.

Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson will walk:

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Devon-Cornwall-pol...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jul/11/ev...

Like so many bent police officers they think they're above the law. This trial, like the Hutton Inquiry, is so much taxpayer funded eyewash.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 24th February 18:11

[Ozzie Osmond]

It is laughable how often the press "just happen to be passing by" when the police are onto someone. You'd think they had inside knowledge or something....

[Dr Jekyll]

uk66fastback said:

But that shouldn't happen at this level surely? I presumed there are some of the brightest legal minds in the country in the CPS and they see these cases from every angle WELL in advance of a court case or decision to prosecute, or am I mistaken?

These ain't trainees, these are (I hope) the top boys (and girls)!

With salaries to match

No disrespect to those who work for the CPS, but I'd have thought the best legal minds could make far more in private practice.

[Steffan]

Ozzie Osmond said:

It is laughable how often the press "just happen to be passing by" when the police are onto someone. You'd think they had inside knowledge or something....

George Carman made much of that fact when he berated the police for arresting his clients at 6.00 in the morning with 100 press and photographers just happening to be there ready to take the photos etc. Started his outstanding defence which resulted in both brothers being acquitted. Very effective with razor sharp sarcasm was George Carman and at his brilliant best in that trial. As others have said on this thread I regret to say I think the prosecution have not demonstrated the direct links needed in this case IMO and NG verdicts are definitely a possibility. Then again the Jury may not like the individuals. Remains to be seen.

[RSoovy4]

Steffan said:

.........the Jury may not like the individuals..........

And there's the rub. I believe they will go down, because the jury will want them to.

Same reason that Counsel always advice nurses and the like to elect jury trial, and advise bankers and estate agents to avoid it at all costs.

[10 Pence Short]

I tend to agree with Soovy, in as much as there is little sympathy from juries for the press or rich socialites. Having said that, the defence do seem to be making themselves look as vulnerable as possible. I'd give decent odds on Brookes being 'taken ill' at some point during the trial.

[RSoovy4]

10 Pence Short said:

I tend to agree with Soovy, in as much as there is little sympathy from juries for the press or rich socialites. Having said that, the defence do seem to be making themselves look as vulnerable as possible. I'd give decent odds on Brookes being 'taken ill' at some point during the trial.

I agree entirely.

Hospitalised with exhaustion and a breakdown brought on by stress, I'd wager.

[10 Pence Short]

Either that or 'ginger'vitous.

[number 46]

Could she not use the '"Saunders'' ploy ?? Of is it too late for that one?

[spitsfire]

RSoovy4 said:

10 Pence Short said:

I tend to agree with Soovy, in as much as there is little sympathy from juries for the press or rich socialites. Having said that, the defence do seem to be making themselves look as vulnerable as possible. I'd give decent odds on Brookes being 'taken ill' at some point during the trial.

I agree entirely.

Hospitalised with exhaustion and a breakdown brought on by stress, I'd wager.

In fairness, she's got to be under a lot of stress; she's taking the stand.

I'm not sure about English law, but in Scots law a defendant taking the stand (particularly in a trial with multiple defendants) is seen as a last ditch strategy; the trial equivalent of shooting the moon.

Can any of m'learned friends from south of the Border shed some light?

[anonymous-user]

I am a civil practitioner and not a criminal lawyer, but my understanding from my criminal law chumz is that you can't generalise too much about that, as in many cases it makes good sense for the defendant to give evidence and is not a sign of desperation. In the bog standard scrotey case, the scrote will be best advised to remain schtum.

[EskimoArapaho]

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear guilty than open it and remove all doubt."

(apologies, Mr Twain)

[DaveR]

And today she is reported to have said that she 'didn't know phone hacking was illegal'.

EskimoArapaho said:

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear guilty than open it and remove all doubt."

(apologies, Mr Twain)

QED!

[Steffan]

DaveR said:

And today she is reported to have said that she 'didn't know phone hacking was illegal'.

EskimoArapaho said:

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear guilty than open it and remove all doubt."

(apologies, Mr Twain)

QED!

Indeed I noted that gaff which was either carefully planned or more probably a boo boo. Difficult to tell with so many axes being ground all about. It certainly sounded utterly untruthful to me.

[anonymous-user]

I have not followed this trial, but thought that Brookes' evidence at Leveson was unconvincing. I thought that Robert Jay pulled his punches and let her off too lightly. BTW, Robert was arguably too nice a bloke for that job. Someone a bit less senior in silk and a bit more feisty might have been a better choice. He'll be a good Judge, though.

[RSoovy4]

Breaders old chap.

Do you reckon they'll get potted?

[anonymous-user]

I really don't know, as I haven't been paying attention to the reports of the evidence. The Defendants may be at risk, even if the prosecution fail to prove what they should prove, because the jury may just think the Defendants must have been up to something, but sometimes juries can be rigorous and acquit when not persuaded.

Take the Michael Jackson kiddyfiddling case - the jury thought he was a wrong 'un, but weren't sure that he had done the deeds alleged, so they set him free to be offed by his Doc.

[Steffan]

Breadvan72 said:

I really don't know, as I haven't been paying attention to the reports of the evidence. The Defendants may be at risk, even if the prosecution fail to prove what they should prove, because the jury may just think the Defendants must have been up to something, but sometimes juries can be rigorous and acquit when not persuaded.

Take the Michael Jackson kiddyfiddling case - the jury thought he was a wrong 'un, but weren't sure that he had done the deeds alleged, so they set him free to be offed by his Doc.

Some of this crowd (there are a few) do seem to be utterly immoral dishonest two faced and rich which may well weigh against them with the Jury. Brooks and Coulson seem particularly slimy but as yet I have seen little real evidence that they were definitely personally responsible for the phones being hacked. Not signing the contracts, not being in the country and not writing the stories makes their proximity just too great for conviction IMO. But juries can be fickle. I remain unconvinced. Could go either way.