News

Hacking trial: jury to retire to consider verdicts on 9th June

19/05/2014

Martin Hickman

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

The jury in the phone hacking trial is set to retire to consider its verdicts three weeks today, Judge John Saunders said this morning.

Addressing the 11 remaining jurors after the final defence evidence was heard, Mr Justice Saunders pinpointed Monday 9 June as the day they went out because the rest of the case was "completely timetabled; except me."

The court has previously heard that the closing speeches from the defence and prosecution will last 10 days in total, with the judge's summing up due to take about three days.

Mr Justice Saunders said that he could not say exactly how long his summing up would take.

But taking into account a five day break for the May bank holiday beginning on Thursday, he told the jury: "Our aim is that you will retire to start considering your verdicts on Monday 9 June."

So far, including periods of legal argument without the jury, the case has sat at London's Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) for 117 days.

The defence evidence concluded this morning with the final prosecution cross-examination of Clive Goodman, the News of the World's former royal editor.

Andrew Edis QC, for the Crown, ran through a series of emails from Mr Goodman in which he referred to stories about police officers guarding the royal family. On 11 August 2005, for instance, Mr Goodman told a News of the World executive that he obtained a scoop about a "security meltdown" at Balmoral on the first day of the Queen's holiday at her Highland residence.

Mr Goodman, who denies he paid police officers for copies of royal phone books, told the court: "The information did not come from a police officer. If something like this happens in a royal household, everyone knows about it."

In another email, he warned the News of the World's management that his source faced jail if hr was discovered selling information to the newspaper. Mr Goodman told the court that was "a bit of salesmanship" to exaggerate the sensitivity of his sources.

He denied that he had told his editor Andy Coulson that he was hacking the phones of Prince William, his then girlfriend Kate Middleton, and Prince Harry.

Mr Edis suggested he had not said Mr Coulson had known about the hacking in his earlier evidence because he would have had to admit to the court that he had hacked the princes, something he only did after returning to court from two months' illness.

Mr Goodman, convicted in 2007 of hacking three royal aides, said: "The police knew [then] I had hacked Harry, William and Kate Middleton. The Crown Prosecution Service knew I had hacked Prince William and Harry and they were the ones who did nothing about it because they did not want to embarrass the royal family."

After he finished his evidence, the last of the seven defendants to do so, Mr Edis re-commenced his closing speech, which he had begun before Mr Goodman's return.

Turning to the Count 1 charge of conspiracy to hack phones, Mr Edis raised the letter written in February 2004 by Rebekah Brooks, former News of the World editor, to Mr Coulson, in which she suggested they had a very close relationship which involved sharing confidences.

Mr Edis told the jury: "The relationship between Mrs Brooks and Mr Coulson is directly relevant. It has a factual relevance: two people are charged with a conspiracy - it's important to know how they got on with each other."

The defendants deny all charges. The case, which began in October 2013, continues.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

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
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News