News

Charlie Brooks "too sloppy" to notice hidden bags had not been returned

31/03/2014

By Martin HickmanCharlie Brooks was “too sloppy” after drinking red wine to notice that the bags he had hidden from police had not been returned to him as planned, the Old Bailey heard today.A News International security guard drove back to Mr Brooks’s London home on 17 July 2011 while his wife Rebekah was being questioned by police about suspected phone hacking.But, the hacking trial heard, the bags were not delivered by the guard to Mr Brooks and his friend Chris Palmer as he had expected. Instead only the pizza was taken up to the apartment for Mr Brooks and his friend to consume, along with six bottles of wine they drank during the evening.The bags, containing laptop computers and Mr Brooks’s pornography collection, were discovered by a cleaner the next day stashed behind bins in the underground car park at Chelsea Harbour - and handed to the police.Mr Brooks agreed he had wanted the bags to be returned to him that evening.Andrew Edis QC, for the Crown, asked him: “So the pizza was something you added on to a pre-existing plan - which was to deliver the bags,” to which Mr Brooks replied: “Yes.”Mr Edis continued: “But the pizza arrived and the bags didn’t?,” to which Mr Brooks again replied: “Yes.”Asked why he had not noticed the bags were not back, Mr Brooks told the court: “I got a bit sloppy after a couple of bottles of red wine.”However he denied Mr Edis’ suggestion that “drunkenness” was the only reason he could think of to explain the chain of events. Mr Brooks said: “No, that’s not correct.”He and his wife deny conspiring with each other and NI’s head of security, Mark Hanna, to pervert the course of justice by hiding the bags from police.Mr Edis’ cross-examination of Mr Brooks is due to conclude tomorrow.

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News