Phone Hacking Arrests

alastair

ignorant
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,310
Location
The Champions League
Brophs said:
What's the alternative? Let people get away with it?
Click to expand...
Stop taking cases to court with a lack of evidence.

The reality is that the percentage of guilty verdicts at The Old Bailey is well into the nineties. You very rarely get found not-guilty there.

On this occasion, however, there was never any absolutely clear evidence that Brooks did anything - no direct e-mail conversations for example. She covered it up superbly, as opposed to Coulson, who didn't.

It's frustrating because I don't think a person in the world believes she didn't know what was going on.
 

Brophs

The One and Only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
50,625
alastair said:
Stop taking cases to court with a lack of evidence.

The reality is that the percentage of guilty verdicts at The Old Bailey is well into the nineties. You very rarely get found not-guilty there.

On this occasion, however, there was never any absolutely clear evidence that Brooks did anything - no direct e-mail conversations for example. She covered it up superbly, as opposed to Coulson, who didn't.

It's frustrating because I don't think a person in the world believes she didn't know what was going on.
Click to expand...
Nah, in very public cases like this involving a strong moral element, you don't make the decision to prosecute based solely on a weak case. If it was a no hoper it wouldn't have been run. From what I've seen it wasn't especially strong, but I suspect they felt public opinion would carry them to a guilty verdict.
 

alastair

ignorant
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,310
Location
The Champions League
Brophs said:
Nah, in very public cases like this involving a strong moral element, you don't make the decision to prosecute based solely on a weak case. If it was a no hoper it wouldn't have been run. From what I've seen it wasn't especially strong, but I suspect they felt public opinion would carry them to a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a no hoper but the only way they'd have got a guilty verdict was if the jury took the common sense approach and just did not believe her line about not knowing about it.

Sadly, given the judge perpetually told the jury throughout the trial to not make assumptions and to make a decision solely on the evidence presented, it was unlikely she'd ever get found guilty.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Joke verdict, joke country.
 

CassiusClaymore

Is it Gaizka Mendieta?
Scout
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
35,978
Location
None of your business mate
Supports
The greatest team in history
Really?!? They couldn't find one scrap of evidence to prove she knew about this? That's mind boggling.

She'll probably sue now for all the distress this has caused her.

Laughable.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,944
What happened to the perverting the course of justice charges? Weren't they caught chucking loads of evidence out or something? I haven't followed it all that closely.
 

alastair

ignorant
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,310
Location
The Champions League
CassiusClaymore said:
Really?!? They couldn't find one scrap of evidence to prove she knew about this? That's mind boggling.

She'll probably sue now for all the distress this has caused her.

Laughable.
Click to expand...
She's got a great case to sue. She's basically been stopped from working for seven months and now she's been acquitted by unanimous verdict.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,944
alastair said:
She's got a great case to sue. She's basically been stopped from working for seven months and now she's been acquitted by unanimous verdict.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. To sue for malicious prosecution she would have to demonstrate that she was prosecuted without probable cause, which given that Coulson was convicted (and they worked closely together as well as having an affair) is obviously false. I imagine she'll just want to stay out of the limelight for a little while.
 

alastair

ignorant
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,310
Location
The Champions League
MikeUpNorth said:
I doubt it. To sue for malicious prosecution she would have to demonstrate that she was prosecuted without probable cause, which given that Coulson was convicted (and they worked closely together as well as having an affair) is obviously false. I imagine she'll just want to stay out of the limelight for a little while.
Click to expand...
You're right of course but there is an argument that the evidence for her case was really quite weak compared to Coulson and the prosecution were aware of this for quite a while before the case.

Here's quite a good piece on Brooks:

http://m.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/0...ial-why-was-rebekah-brooks-found-not-guilty-0
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,514
If she sues, wouldn't she be putting herself in a position where her guilt/lack there of (one says, just in case) is held to a much lower standard than that which led to a not guilty verdict in this instance?
 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,695
alastair said:
£10m down the drain. Minimum.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that didn't the investigation force quite a few confessions as well as the Coulson conviction and generally showed the allegations on the scale of hacking to be true? These are now established facts despite every attempt by Murdoch to pour scorn on and ridicule /bully his accusers.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Phone-hacking trial was officially about crime; but in reality, it was about power

Rupert Murdoch's money washed through the 'trial of the century' like a Rolls-Royce. The story behind the News of the World scandal was not about journalists behaving badly, but the power of money and its abuses

Brooks and Coulson had squads of senior partners, junior solicitors and paralegals, as well as a highly efficient team monitoring all news and social media. The cost to Murdoch ran into millions. Against that, the Crown Prosecution Service had only one full-time solicitor attached to the trial and one admin assistant.
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch
 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,695
Having stated that she knew absolutely nothing about phone hacking by people in her direct employment and at a cost of millions to the company because of her incompetence. Of course they take her back, I mean with credentials like that who wouldn't?
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Don't Kill Bill said:
Having stated that she knew absolutely nothing about phone hacking by people in her direct employment and at a cost of millions to the company because of her incompetence. Of course they take her back, I mean with credentials like that who wouldn't?
Click to expand...
It's almost like once you reach a certain level and have the right friends the rules do not apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.