Rebekah Brooks cleared, Andy Coulson found guilty........

[PokerTime]

That's right Jah. That kind of connection will always leads to cries of foul.

I agree with you DaveR. The case against Brooks was weak, Coulson, iron clad. Juries have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. That's what always amuses me too about the reporting of not guilty verdicts 'the jury have found you not guilty'. 'Found' is a word that exonerates the jury of letting the guilty get away with it, as much as defining the injustice of those wrongly accused.

On the other hand, maybe Brooks is only guilty of being an employee of an organisation over which she had no real control over methods. We shall never know.

[DaveR]

It's a pretty tenuous connection to government - A Cameron has been at the Bar for 25 years and there's never been any suggestion that he has any political leaning, and the idea that it might influence a member of his chambers is completely unrealistic. Being head of chambers is not like being someone's boss (tbh it's a thankless task). And still no indication of what the suspicion of corruption is? It's not a suspicion that's been aired publicly by anyone as far as I can see, probably because there are zero grounds

[david_carnell]

Also, just a few weeks ago, A. Cameron was fronting a challenge against legal aid cuts by asking a judge to rule that a fair trial could not take place due to lack of expert lawyers. It was seen as a real blow to the government's justice reforms. He can't be both part of the establishment cabal and fighting against it at the same time.

[StraferJack]

DaveR: All points about bias and whatnot aside.. do your spidey senses not twitch in the slightest over any of this? Genuinely nothing?

[DaveR]

SJ, I know some of the lawyers involved and know most of the others by reputation, and although I don't know the judge I know the type pretty well. More importantly, I don't understand the narrative of any corruption/conspiracy story. The fact Brooks counsel was from DC's brother's set just doesn't take you anywhere - it was his job to get her off, and he did. What could DC do - ask him to try harder? Plus, everything that happened in the trial happened in public, in the presence of a whole load of journos who would be on to any hint of irregularity like a shot.

Even if I put my most cynical hat on, if you want to fix a criminal trial the people you nobble are the cops, maybe the cps, not the barrister.

[StraferJack]

sorry Dave, my mistake. I didn't mean to suggest such a narrow focus

I think I have already said on here that the jury did the right thing - evidence wasn't sufficient. So I'm not suggesting anything iffy in the due process

By spidey senses I just mean Brooks, her role - not just in the trial, but over several years. Long before the scandal, not just lefties have complained about her and her methods. Murdoch's priority to save "this one" above any of the staff at NotW. When the trial was underway, Blair ringing her and not the Dowlers to offer his sympathy and support

Can't say she is guilty of anything. But one would have to be objectively tone deaf to think "nothing to see here"

[WorkingMummy]

Rebekah Brooks had a team of three counsel: none of them are at Alex Cameron's chambers.

[Jah Lush]

Coulson sentenced to 18 months for phone hacking.

[Otta]

In an open prison.

But he does have to spend a few nights in Belmarsh, which will probably be the worst few nights of his life.

[steveo]

I dunno, he'll have them all sitting at his knees listening to the stories.

He'll do nine months max and come out just in time to launch the bonk buster.

Murdoch will want him silenced unless he's post ironic enough to publish it

[Jeremy]

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dunno, he'll have them all sitting at his knees

Change the words around a bit and you might be closer to the truth

[Jah Lush]

Almost spat my tea out reading this.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/26/rebekah-brooks-hacking-trial-costs-news-uk

[Salsaboy]

Taking the piss a bit.

[BrandNewGuy]

You might not like her (and I don't), but the general principle seems to be sound that if you're found not guilty you shouldn't be caned for legal costs.

[Jah Lush]

In principle you're correct but we all know it was Murdoch's money funded the whole thing and that money paid for a legal team that dwarfed the prosecution's legal costs into the ground so much so that she got off. I still feel she's guilty as hell but that money wielded the power to get her off.

Also, the ?100 million that News International has also had to pay out for other legal damages etc etc and her pay-off beggars belief.

These are rich powerful arrogant people with connections in high places. I just find the whole thing very distasteful. But of course they are perfectly within their rights - the bastards!

[Jah Lush]

Phew! Well, that's a relief.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/10/02/rebekah-brooks-withdrew-trial-costs-bid-after-judge-asked-second-opinion-phone

[Parkdrive]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Phew! Well, that's a relief.

>

> http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/10/02/rebekah-bro

> oks-withdrew-trial-costs-bid-after-judge-asked-sec

> ond-opinion-phone

Do you reckon she thought it might be a good idea not to push her luck?

[DaveR]

Interesting. Usually an acquitted defendant gets their costs paid back pretty much automatically. In this case though, the costs had been paid by News International, and even though the application was made by Brooks, they would have got the money if an order was made. The judge obviously thought that was a bit suspect, because News International was so heavily implicated in proven hacking, including by other individuals who had been convicted, and wanted to ask a whole load of potentially embarrassing questions, the answers to which would have been read out in open court. At that point, News decide they don't want the costs after all! Nice work Saunders J.

[Jah Lush]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Nice work Saunders J.

Indeed. ;-)

[Otta]

And he's out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30142722

[PokerTime]

After not even serving half his sentence! What is the point of judges handing down sentences if they don't actually mean anything?

[DaveR]

He did spend 5 months in the nick, including a short but undoubtedly nasty spell in Belmarsh, so not completely meaningless. And the early release provisions apply to everybody, not just 'celeb' offenders.