Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today

[Steffan]

carinaman said:

Breadvan72 said:

On reflection, as Coulson (definitely) and also, allegedly, a certain Prime Minister, allegedly, have already visited, I think I shall focus my ambitions elsewhere.

I reached that conclusion before you and resisted temptations to make comparisons with your Beta Spyder.

From what I can see the Spyder is in much better shape. That would a rewarding ride. With a lot less baggage and probable downsides

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

You mean something not young, but quite fast, red, and a bit rusty around the tail pipe?

That and "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Spyderr.

[joe_90]

RSoovy4 said:

I still predict a hospitalisation at some point.

You know what, I think you will be right.. That, or any other last gasps for air. A very interesting, yet obvious idea.

[Steffan]

joe_90 said:

RSoovy4 said:

I still predict a hospitalisation at some point.

You know what, I think you will be right.. That, or any other last gasps for air. A very interesting, yet obvious idea.

Juries are as odd as one would expect of random selections with the time to commit to such a trial. Judges get very unhappy (for a change) when prospective jurors plead being to busy for such lengthy service. However realistically no businessman with a small business could accept such a burden. It would mean redundancy for the employees and no judge will order that. Such straight forward and deliberate manipulation of the Jury might work in simpler and less high profile cases. I am hopeful that it would not in this case. "If you cannot face the time do not do the crime" seems appropriate advice with this crowd.

[onyx39]

joe_90 said:

RSoovy4 said:

I still predict a hospitalisation at some point.

You know what, I think you will be right.. That, or any other last gasps for air. A very interesting, yet obvious idea.

[10 Pence Short]

Ahem, can I have first dibs on this prediction earlier in the week:

10 Pence Short said:

I'd give decent odds on Brookes being 'taken ill' at some point during the trial.

[joe_90]

Yep.. soon to be on a beach in the Maldives recovering from stress and other such bks..

So, bets on how soon to the collapse?

[scenario8]

joe_90 said:

Yep.. soon to be on a beach in the Maldives recovering from stress and other such bks..

So, bets on how soon to the collapse?

Look, I don't particularly like the woman either but wishing her to collapse just isn't cricket. <smiley face>

[uk66fastback]

joe_90 said:

Yep.. soon to be on a beach in the Maldives recovering from stress and other such bks..

So, bets on how soon to the collapse?

• Collapse* as in feigning exhaustion, angst, anxiety, paranoia etc?

Inside the week I reckon ...

Edit: mind you, appearing in the dock at the Bailey isn't exactly a stressless experience ... but

Edited by uk66fastback on Friday 28th February 15:29

[CoolHands]

Breadvan72 said:

That's a pretty remarkable email. Has it been authenticated?

Edit: I see that it has been presented at the trial, and assume that it is Kosher. Blimey!

Interesting that the first thought is is it authenticated. Yet brooks and the others supposedly never questioned the source of all these stories in a similar manner? Totally preposterous, isn't it.

Why isn't the lawyer / editorial communications from the period part of the trial? ie when editors get the company lawyers to check on whether they can run a story (who presumably want to know what evidence the paper holds in order to not get sued). There seems to be no mention of any of that? Cos surely that would give insight into what the editorial team knew in these cases.

[JuniorD]

CoolHands said:

Interesting that the first thought is is it authenticated. Yet brooks and the others supposedly never questioned the source of all these stories in a similar manner? Totally preposterous, isn't it.

Why isn't the lawyer / editorial communications from the period part of the trial? ie when editors get the company lawyers to check on whether they can run a story (who presumably want to know what evidence the paper holds in order to not get sued). There seems to be no mention of any of that? Cos surely that would give insight into what the editorial team knew in these cases.

Would lawyer / editorial communications be privileged?

[anonymous-user]

Yes, unless the communications were to further a criminal endeavour.

I add that taking advice from a lawyer on whether some course of conduct would or would not be lawful would be privileged. Only if the lawyer crosses the line and takes part in a criminal plot does the privilege fall away.

BTW, I watched "The Lincoln Lawyer" the other day. I had read the novel years ago but had forgotten the clever plot. It hinges on questions of legal professional privilege, in the context of a murder case.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 3rd March 07:48

[AW111]

Breadvan72 said:

Yes, unless the communications were to further a criminal endeavour.

Is running a tabloid a criminal endeavor?

[pcvdriver]

CoolHands said:

Breadvan72 said:

That's a pretty remarkable email. Has it been authenticated?

Edit: I see that it has been presented at the trial, and assume that it is Kosher. Blimey!

Interesting that the first thought is is it authenticated. Yet brooks and the others supposedly never questioned the source of all these stories in a similar manner? Totally preposterous, isn't it.

Why isn't the lawyer / editorial communications from the period part of the trial? ie when editors get the company lawyers to check on whether they can run a story (who presumably want to know what evidence the paper holds in order to not get sued). There seems to be no mention of any of that? Cos surely that would give insight into what the editorial team knew in these cases.

I concur, they will have had the best of legal advice, especially prior to running any controversial subject matter. If I'd been the CPS Lawyer, that's one of the questions I'd have been asking them.....

[joe_90]

uk66fastback said:

joe_90 said:

Yep.. soon to be on a beach in the Maldives recovering from stress and other such bks..

So, bets on how soon to the collapse?

• Collapse* as in feigning exhaustion, angst, anxiety, paranoia etc?

Inside the week I reckon ...

Edit: mind you, appearing in the dock at the Bailey isn't exactly a stressless experience ... but

Edited by uk66fastback on Friday 28th February 15:29

it is when you are as guilty as a mother fker and trying to worm your way out of it.

[anonymous-user]

pcvdriver said:

CoolHands said:

Breadvan72 said:

That's a pretty remarkable email. Has it been authenticated?

Edit: I see that it has been presented at the trial, and assume that it is Kosher. Blimey!

Interesting that the first thought is is it authenticated. Yet brooks and the others supposedly never questioned the source of all these stories in a similar manner? Totally preposterous, isn't it.

Why isn't the lawyer / editorial communications from the period part of the trial? ie when editors get the company lawyers to check on whether they can run a story (who presumably want to know what evidence the paper holds in order to not get sued). There seems to be no mention of any of that? Cos surely that would give insight into what the editorial team knew in these cases.

I concur, they will have had the best of legal advice, especially prior to running any controversial subject matter. If I'd been the CPS Lawyer, that's one of the questions I'd have been asking them.....

If you were the CPS lawyer, you would probably know the rules about legal professional privilege, and so you wouldn't ask that question.

[pcvdriver]

Breadvan72 said:

If you were the CPS lawyer, you would probably know the rules about legal professional privilege, and so you wouldn't ask that question.

Surely there are ways of asking the question without contravening professional privilege?

[anonymous-user]

The issue is whether there are ways of answering the question without busting the privilege, and I can't see that there are. The privilege would be asserted, and would be hard to defeat. Strictly speaking, the privilege would be that of the company, not the individuals, but these defendants were the governing minds of the company at the relevant time, and I would not expect the court to admit in evidence privileged discussions which the defendants had with the company lawyers while engaged in the (even if perhaps dodgy) business of the company.

If the company were to say "these employees were on frolics of their own, nothing to do with us, Guv", then things might become interesting in all sorts of ways, not limited to privilege.

[rohrl]

Breadvan72 said:

If the company were to say "these employees were on frolics of their own, nothing to do with us, Guv", then things might become interesting in all sorts of ways, not limited to privilege.

That won't happen. The follow-up would have to be "So why have you (NewsCorp) been paying all their legal bills for the last x years?"

[Steffan]

Breadvan72 said:

The issue is whether there are ways of answering the question without busting the privilege, and I can't see that there are. The privilege would be asserted, and would be hard to defeat. Strictly speaking, the privilege would be that of the company, not the individuals, but these defendants were the governing minds of the company at the relevant time, and I would not expect the court to admit in evidence privileged discussions which the defendants had with the company lawyers while engaged in the (even if perhaps dodgy) business of the company.

If the company were to say "these employees were on frolics of their own, nothing to do with us, Guv", then things might become interesting in all sorts of ways, not limited to privilege.

A most informative post. On a similar note, having been personally involved in umpteen (many hundreds) of amalgamations, reconstructions and liquidations over 40 odd years (very odd!)I can only agree. The Justice system cannot determine reactions to business failures and events and the consequences thereof with sufficient accuracy to actually offer a realistic prospect of success in most actions.

Many of the pre packaged major collapses in retail businesses where within hours or at the most a few days the entire business is effectively shorn of tens of millions in debt and free to operate again legally. I do not like such arrangements because the Creditors IMO are very badly done to. But the discussions between the various parties are outside the realm of investigation. I cannot see any of the legal advice or discussions within this mess being investigated of considered in any way. The law cannot be involved within such privileged frameworks.