Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today

[Los Endos]

Ian H is many things but he is not stupid to held up for contempt of court
PE will be damn fine read for months post this trial, not that it's damn fine read every two weeks anyway :-)

[Derek Smith]

Los Endos said:

Ian H is many things but he is not stupid to held up for contempt of court

I'm not sure legal records would support that suggestion.

[Slaav]

Chimune said:

V8 Fettler said:

These must be halcyon days for Private Eye.

i thought they were rather soft on the whole subject in HIGNFY.

I would love to see the out takes of that recording - not the HIGMNFY but the out takes that may never be seen....

[10 Pence Short]

Derek Smith said:

Every now an again the defence team will come up with an ambush, something off the wall, a surprise witness, or at least the content of their evidence.

Some defence teams think that they can destroy the credibility of a witness, at least in the eyes of the jury.

Sometimes I suspect you make things up as you go along, Derek. In Crown Court trials the rules prevent ambush evidence from either side. The defence must submit a defence statement giving the grounds of defence and evidence relied upon weeks before the trial commences. Permission to adduce bad character evidence must be applied for well in advance, too.

[Los Endos]

Derek Smith said:

Los Endos said:

Ian H is many things but he is not stupid to held up for contempt of court

I'm not sure legal records would support that suggestion.

Hmmm.... I thought that when I wrote it but then I thought libel cases are not the same as contempt of court.
I have the excellent history of PE, and I don't recall seeing a CoC on Mr Hislop's charge sheet, but I stand to be corrected.

Either way, I can't believe any right minded person wouldn't subscribe to their bi-weekly offering, it is certainly the best value Standing Order coming out of my bank account :-)

[Ozzie Osmond]

I think that's right. Have I Got News For You and the BBC were fined £10,000 for contempt of court but that resulted from something read out by Angus Deayton, not said by Ian Hislop.

Ian Hislop escaped censure for saying "If that's justice, then I'm a banana" outside court after he lost a libel case and was ordered to pay £600,000 to Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of serial killer Peter Sutcliffe. (Mrs S did not insist upon payment of the full amount)

[Los Endos]

Thanks Ozzy for the clarification
But anyway back to the meat of this thread, when Coulson became PS to DC, I wrote to my two local MP's saying either DC is employing an idiot or a liar, takes your pick....
Suffice to say I didn't get a reply
I eagerly await the courts ruling :-)

[Derek Smith]

10 Pence Short said:

Sometimes I suspect you make things up as you go along, Derek. In Crown Court trials the rules prevent ambush evidence from either side. The defence must submit a defence statement giving the grounds of defence and evidence relied upon weeks before the trial commences. Permission to adduce bad character evidence must be applied for well in advance, too.

Yeah, right. That's the problem with experience. It often conflicts with what everyone says happens.

[Derek Smith]

Los Endos said:

Hmmm.... I thought that when I wrote it but then I thought libel cases are not the same as contempt of court.
I have the excellent history of PE, and I don't recall seeing a CoC on Mr Hislop's charge sheet, but I stand to be corrected.

Either way, I can't believe any right minded person wouldn't subscribe to their bi-weekly offering, it is certainly the best value Standing Order coming out of my bank account :-)

I know little or nothing about civil courts although I do believe one can be held in contempt of them. Hislop was told, at least according to the Eye - not always to be trusted it has to be said - that if he was ever before that specific civil court/judge again on a contempt accusation he would go to prison.

I too subscribe but my wife feels I should not as I always end up in Meldrew mode after reading it. Rotten Boroughs is especially depressing.

[10 Pence Short]

Derek Smith said:

Yeah, right. That's the problem with experience. It often conflicts with what everyone says happens.

To be fair Derek, the advent of legislation and the criminal procedure rules since your experiences mean crown court trials are likely very different beasts to what you remember.

What you describe regards evidence might wash in magistrates but doesn't at crown, whatever you may think.

[gpo746]

10 Pence Short said:

Derek Smith said:

Every now an again the defence team will come up with an ambush, something off the wall, a surprise witness, or at least the content of their evidence.

Some defence teams think that they can destroy the credibility of a witness, at least in the eyes of the jury.

Sometimes I suspect you make things up as you go along, Derek. In Crown Court trials the rules prevent ambush evidence from either side. The defence must submit a defence statement giving the grounds of defence and evidence relied upon weeks before the trial commences. Permission to adduce bad character evidence must be applied for well in advance, too.

To be blunt I think Dereck bigs himself up sometimes but I don't see anything incorrect in what he posted there. Defence teams will at the very least try to show a witness in a poor light.

I will give you an example.
Several years ago a shop owner was called to court in Edinburgh the reason being was that he had sold a stock of sim cards to a market trader and some of those sim cards had in turn been sold to someone who had used them to intimidate a witness. It was a pretty ludicrous reason to call the witness to court but I believe it was done to establish a link with the sim cards being in the Birmingham area.
The witness duly went to court but expressed his displeasure at having to do so. As the market trader had had his home address read out in court the shop owner asked that his address be kept secret for fear of any reprisal. This was requested by letter to the judge who agreed.
Basic questioning commenced and the witness was asked various details from the defence barristers which was initially general such as do you supply sim cards etc. Then one of the barristers asked if he could recall some particular numbers from the sims when the witness said no he was subject to several minutes of hard questioning as to why he couldn't remember the numbers and how should he believed. It eventually ledto the judges interruption as essentially the witness was being called a liar as if he couldn't remember the numbers how could he be relied upon to have provided the sims to the trader.
It was over the top unnecessary questioning that was effectively being asked by 3 barristers.

[10 Pence Short]

Our system is adversarial and evidence is robustly tested. This applies to both he defence and prosecution.

Bear in mind that a large number of criminal barristers are both defenders and CPS prosecutors, and interchange the roles daily.

Derek's parable is out of date in relation to crown court trials. Check out the procedure rules and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Perhaps he might update his stories?

[Derek Smith]

10 Pence Short said:

To be fair Derek, the advent of legislation and the criminal procedure rules since your experiences mean crown court trials are likely very different beasts to what you remember.

What you describe regards evidence might wash in magistrates but doesn't at crown, whatever you may think.

Slightly different, or do I mean very different, from suggesting I was making it all up. I could give examples of course, but then I'm certain that you know of more instances than I do of practices in court which do not conform to rules, of law or of fairness.

I'm surprised you don't understand what I'm getting at.

I would suggest that only those inexperienced in court cases, or those wilfully blind, would suggest that coaching of witnesses does not go on: that a witness never mentions something that was not in their statement.

I might be out of date but I gave evidence in approx. 35 CC cases in 2002/3, and was given a full witness order in over 100 more in that period. I would suggest that that is unusual. Ten years ago now I know but not that much has changed in that time. Late submissions, or in fact no submissions at all, are hardly unknown. I still talk to serving officers, and talk to those who, up until recently were civilian staff in the police, but who have been sacked in order to allow police officers to spend more time in the nick. They tell me what goes on.

I'm not suggesting it is the norm but bring a bit of money into the occasion and all sorts of barriers disappear.

There is little doubt that, for the police, the time to worry is when the evidence is overwhelming.

But then, maybe I'm completely wrong, and am back in the days of quill pens and high collared tunics, but I'd put money on the CPS not having a clue as to the nature of the critical defence ploy in this particular case. And it will be within the rules.

CPS will have the answer to everything they have been told.

But let's await developments.

[Los Endos]

Okay, now you legal eagles have stopped rowing, can I ask you a question....

If Brooks and Coulson do go down on both counts, what sort of tariffs are we looking at, someone did suggest
burning at the stake for Brooks, sadly I don't believe this is part of the criminal justice system any more

[10 Pence Short]

Derek, in crown court cases the defence are obliged to serve the prosecution with defence statements well in advance of trial. These statements have to detail what the defence will be and on what they will rely.

This is just one of the changes brought about by the CJA 2003.

Having a few quid for a defence barrister makes little or no difference, as Legal Aid can provide even the most skint defendant a top barrister. Even then they have the same need to follow the CPR.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

Yeah, right. That's the problem with experience. It often conflicts with what everyone says happens.

As perception often conflicts with fact.

[RSoovy4]

So, RB and her PA destroyed evidence when she knew she was about to be arrested.

This is turning into a seminar about how NOT to handle yourself.

Mind you, the PA isn't bad - 49!!

[10 Pence Short]

If RB gets sent down, will she have to put her mop in kennels 'till she comes out?

[Mr_B]

Quick, lets get rid of the evidence and all those computers, lets hide them behind this bin in a car park..... genuis.

[Derek Smith]

Anyone know of a decent on-line source for details of this case?