News0 min ago
phone hacking
6 Answers
Just seen that Coulson and Brooks have been charged over this.
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by HowardKennitby. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the recent media announcement is a statement by the CPS of intent to charge the named individuals on charges of conspiracy /phone hacking, using RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) legislation.
Coulson and Brookes have already been charged with seperate offences relating to perjury ( Coulson, Scotland) , and comspiracy to pervert the course of justice (Brookes)
Coulson and Brookes have already been charged with seperate offences relating to perjury ( Coulson, Scotland) , and comspiracy to pervert the course of justice (Brookes)
Any bets on the outcome ?
What has Brookes supposed to have done? He seems pretty peripheral to all this. Is it suggested that he knew that his wife was a party to destroying evidence and helped her directly in doing so or that he merely obstructed the police by trying to cover up her involvement ?
Coulson must have a run on the perjury charge. He is accused of lying when he claimed that phone hacking didn't happen much, when it was happening a lot, as he well knew. It's not clear how that evidence was material in the proceeding in which he gave it, which it would have to be for the offence to be proved. The 'proceeding' was a perjury trial where the defendant was proved to have lied as the complainant in a libel action where the issue was his immoral and improper behaviour. How the answer on phone hacking was relevant to the issue of the complainant perjuring himself by falsely denying his own improper behaviour, is not obvious. The best that could be said is that a truthful answer would have gone to damaging the credibility of the witness, but that argument is a bit thin for saying that it was relevant in the circumstances. Whether hacking was prevalent or not doesn't really relate to the libel claim.
What has Brookes supposed to have done? He seems pretty peripheral to all this. Is it suggested that he knew that his wife was a party to destroying evidence and helped her directly in doing so or that he merely obstructed the police by trying to cover up her involvement ?
Coulson must have a run on the perjury charge. He is accused of lying when he claimed that phone hacking didn't happen much, when it was happening a lot, as he well knew. It's not clear how that evidence was material in the proceeding in which he gave it, which it would have to be for the offence to be proved. The 'proceeding' was a perjury trial where the defendant was proved to have lied as the complainant in a libel action where the issue was his immoral and improper behaviour. How the answer on phone hacking was relevant to the issue of the complainant perjuring himself by falsely denying his own improper behaviour, is not obvious. The best that could be said is that a truthful answer would have gone to damaging the credibility of the witness, but that argument is a bit thin for saying that it was relevant in the circumstances. Whether hacking was prevalent or not doesn't really relate to the libel claim.
1 to 6 of 6
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
