Phone hacking: Rebekah Brooks’s husband loses £600,000 costs claim
Rebekah
Brooks's husband Charlie has lost his claim for costs from the
phone-hacking trial. Photograph: Mark Thomas/Rex Features
Rebekah Brooks’s husband Charlie has lost his bid to recover the
£600,000 in legal fees he incurred as a result of being a co-defendant
in the phone-hacking trial.
Mr Justice Saunders also ruled on Wednesday that he was rejecting the application for costs by the News of the World’s former managing editor, Stuart Kuttner.
He said he was “satisfied that the defendants’ conduct brought suspicion on themselves and misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against them was stronger than it was”.
Brooks, a racehorse trainer, was acquitted along with his wife and Kuttner in June after a marathon eight-month trial.
In a statement he said: “At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner the bookmakers pay you.”
Rebekah Brooks dropped her application for an estimated £7m in costs in June after it emerged that News UK (formerly News International), which had indemnified her, was no longer looking to recoup its costs
Her husband was not indemnified by News UK and was cleared of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after stashing a laptop and other material behind a bin the day his wife was arrested.
Kuttner was indemnified by News UK for part of his costs and was seeking £130,000 in costs relating to the early days of the police investigation before his former employer stepped in to support him.
The judge said that Brooks’s barrister had conceded in the trial that the court “could properly conclude that Mr Brooks did bring suspicion upon himself”.
He said he made his judgment on the basis that Brooks did not intend to mislead the police when he hid material on the day of his wife’s arrest.
He said he also accepted that “in light of the verdicts that Mr Brooks did not get rid of anything material to the Weeting or Elveden inquiry”, a reference to Scotland Yard’s investigation into allegations of hacking and of payments to public officials for stories.
Saunders said he accepted that Brooks hid the material, which included pornographic DVDs, for the reasons that he gave during the trial. Brooks had said he needed one of the computers for work as it contained a manuscript for a novel and he did not want the police to confiscate it as part of the search conducted on their home the day after his wife’s arrest.
“It was however incredibly stupid, as he himself has accepted, and gave rise to justifiable suspicions as to his conduct and the conduct of a number of others,” said Saunders in his ruling.
“I am quite satisfied that Mr Brooks brought suspicion on himself and others.”
He also said that Brooks’s “anger” about a separate dawn raid months later n their Oxfordshire home was “not justified” when viewed objectively. As he had hidden material previously, the police could not have given him advance warning of a search because of “an unacceptable risk of any incriminating material being spirited away”.
The trial jury heard that Brooks had decided not to answer questions during his police interview on advice from his lawyers.
Saunders said solicitors frequently give this advice, but noted that they “do not know the truth”.
He went on to note: “Mr Brooks knew that he was entirely innocent.
“Mr Brooks knew that there was no risk to him or anyone else in answering all of the police questions entirely honestly because he had done nothing wrong and telling the truth might have had the result of clearing the matter up completely.”
Saunders noted that Brooks “is a very intelligent man” and “was not intimidated by being interviewed by the police”.
He said his barrister had argued in court that even if Brooks’s “failure to answer questions had mislead police into thinking the case against him was stronger than it was, that impression was dispelled” by a detailed letter to the Crown Prosecution Service following his arrest.
In conclusion Saunders ruled: “He is innocent of the charge he faced. It was does not automatically follow that he must recover his costs and this is one of those cases where, for the reasons I have given, it is not appropriate that he should.”
Saunders’s ruling on Kuttner revolved around the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and the decision by the News of the World to dispatch a squad of reporters and photographers to the Midlands after hearing a voicemail on the schoolgirl’s mobile apparently showing she was interested in working for a computer company in Telford.
He noted that the team had been sent to the Midlands on Friday and had approached the recruitment agency which had left the message, mistakenly, on the murdered teenager’s phone.
“Neither the police nor Milly’s family had any idea what was going on,” Saunders observed.
He said the accessing of Milly’s phone was a criminal offence and should not have happened and the News of the World should have told the police “immediately what they had discovered and not waited to see if they could find Milly Dowler”.
Saunders said that “on the unchallenged evidence” Kuttner delayed telling the police about the voicemail which may have been a new lead in the search for the teenager.
He also noted that he “did nothing to ensure” that hacking did not happen again on the paper after he had learned about the Dowler voicemail. Nor did he endeavour to investigate the extent of the hacking on the paper.
“I am sure on the evidence that I have heard that Stuart Kuttner did bring suspicion on himself by his conduct in relation to the Milly Dowler investigation.
“His conduct thereafter was such as to make the prosecution believe that their case was stronger than it really was. In those circumstances it is appropriate that I exercise my discretion to refuse to make a defence costs order.”
Mr Justice Saunders also ruled on Wednesday that he was rejecting the application for costs by the News of the World’s former managing editor, Stuart Kuttner.
He said he was “satisfied that the defendants’ conduct brought suspicion on themselves and misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against them was stronger than it was”.
Brooks, a racehorse trainer, was acquitted along with his wife and Kuttner in June after a marathon eight-month trial.
In a statement he said: “At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner the bookmakers pay you.”
Rebekah Brooks dropped her application for an estimated £7m in costs in June after it emerged that News UK (formerly News International), which had indemnified her, was no longer looking to recoup its costs
Her husband was not indemnified by News UK and was cleared of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after stashing a laptop and other material behind a bin the day his wife was arrested.
Kuttner was indemnified by News UK for part of his costs and was seeking £130,000 in costs relating to the early days of the police investigation before his former employer stepped in to support him.
The judge said that Brooks’s barrister had conceded in the trial that the court “could properly conclude that Mr Brooks did bring suspicion upon himself”.
He said he made his judgment on the basis that Brooks did not intend to mislead the police when he hid material on the day of his wife’s arrest.
He said he also accepted that “in light of the verdicts that Mr Brooks did not get rid of anything material to the Weeting or Elveden inquiry”, a reference to Scotland Yard’s investigation into allegations of hacking and of payments to public officials for stories.
Saunders said he accepted that Brooks hid the material, which included pornographic DVDs, for the reasons that he gave during the trial. Brooks had said he needed one of the computers for work as it contained a manuscript for a novel and he did not want the police to confiscate it as part of the search conducted on their home the day after his wife’s arrest.
“It was however incredibly stupid, as he himself has accepted, and gave rise to justifiable suspicions as to his conduct and the conduct of a number of others,” said Saunders in his ruling.
“I am quite satisfied that Mr Brooks brought suspicion on himself and others.”
He also said that Brooks’s “anger” about a separate dawn raid months later n their Oxfordshire home was “not justified” when viewed objectively. As he had hidden material previously, the police could not have given him advance warning of a search because of “an unacceptable risk of any incriminating material being spirited away”.
The trial jury heard that Brooks had decided not to answer questions during his police interview on advice from his lawyers.
Saunders said solicitors frequently give this advice, but noted that they “do not know the truth”.
He went on to note: “Mr Brooks knew that he was entirely innocent.
“Mr Brooks knew that there was no risk to him or anyone else in answering all of the police questions entirely honestly because he had done nothing wrong and telling the truth might have had the result of clearing the matter up completely.”
Saunders noted that Brooks “is a very intelligent man” and “was not intimidated by being interviewed by the police”.
He said his barrister had argued in court that even if Brooks’s “failure to answer questions had mislead police into thinking the case against him was stronger than it was, that impression was dispelled” by a detailed letter to the Crown Prosecution Service following his arrest.
In conclusion Saunders ruled: “He is innocent of the charge he faced. It was does not automatically follow that he must recover his costs and this is one of those cases where, for the reasons I have given, it is not appropriate that he should.”
Saunders’s ruling on Kuttner revolved around the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and the decision by the News of the World to dispatch a squad of reporters and photographers to the Midlands after hearing a voicemail on the schoolgirl’s mobile apparently showing she was interested in working for a computer company in Telford.
He noted that the team had been sent to the Midlands on Friday and had approached the recruitment agency which had left the message, mistakenly, on the murdered teenager’s phone.
“Neither the police nor Milly’s family had any idea what was going on,” Saunders observed.
He said the accessing of Milly’s phone was a criminal offence and should not have happened and the News of the World should have told the police “immediately what they had discovered and not waited to see if they could find Milly Dowler”.
Saunders said that “on the unchallenged evidence” Kuttner delayed telling the police about the voicemail which may have been a new lead in the search for the teenager.
He also noted that he “did nothing to ensure” that hacking did not happen again on the paper after he had learned about the Dowler voicemail. Nor did he endeavour to investigate the extent of the hacking on the paper.
“I am sure on the evidence that I have heard that Stuart Kuttner did bring suspicion on himself by his conduct in relation to the Milly Dowler investigation.
“His conduct thereafter was such as to make the prosecution believe that their case was stronger than it really was. In those circumstances it is appropriate that I exercise my discretion to refuse to make a defence costs order.”
