Phone-hacking trial: "Don"t let Rebekah resign" – court hears of Rupert ...

Day 74 morning

• Former PA Cheryl Carter continues her defence


• Rupert Murdoch called Carter saying “Don’t let Rebekah resign,” defendant says


• Boxes “contained exactly what it said on the tin,” prosecution suggest

Court resumed this morning to hear further evidence from Rebekah Brooks’ former personal assistant Cheryl Carter who is accused, along with Brooks, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in relation to seven boxes of documents removed by her from the archives of News International in July 2011. The prosecution allege that the boxes contained information relevant to the police investigation into phone hacking. Carter says they were materials that she used for her beauty column in the Sun.

Trevor Burke QC, Carter’s defence counsel, began today’s proceedings by asking his client about events on the 8 July 2011, the day it was announced the News of the World was to close. Carter explained an email about “The Master Butchers” related to a band she was booking for a party being arranged by Charlie Brooks. A further email in which Carter stated “Rebekah shouldn’t be told” was about a visit Carter took to the doctor, the defendant said. “It was my business” Carter told the court. A reference to a “Dr Who Dalek” in another email, Carter explained, was about an item Brooks had in storage at the News International’s archives.

On 15 July 2011, the court was told, Brooks resigned as CEO of News International and was escorted from the building. On 20 July, Carter agreed she and her husband had dinner with Rebekah Brooks at her Oxfordshire home and stayed overnight. On 22 July 2011 Carter resigned from News International. Carter said she was allowed to keep her company laptop, iPad and phone when she left as she was still writing her column for the Sun. These, she said, were handed back in October 2011 after she ceased writing for the paper. On 28 July, Carter said, she and her husband drove to Brooks’ home with eight crates of documents from News International. These, Carter said, had been removed from Brooks’ office and were personal items which she removed under supervision. The defendant told the court she did not remove the documents until after the police had searched Brooks’ office. “They knew who I was because I brought them tea and cake and the key to Rebekah’s safe,” Carter said. No police officer, the witness told the court, asked to search the filing cabinets around her desk.

Carter was asked how she felt when she discovered that the phone of missing teenager Milly Dowler had been hacked by a private detective working for the News of the World. The defendant told the court she was “absolutely and totally shocked”, adding: “I didn’t think anyine ever could do that to anyone.” The witness said she thought Brooks was “shocked” but said she had never discussed the Dowler hack with her. On 8 July, Carter said, Rupert Murdoch called her and said “please don’t let Rebekah resign”. The defendant said Brooks had only ever spoken to her once about phone hacking, when she was told by police her own phone had been hacked by Glenn Mulcaire. “She was shocked,” Carter told the court.

The defence QC then returned to the issue of the seven boxes and asked about the role of her son Nick. Carter said: “I would never, ever get my son involved in a criminal conspiracy, it’s just not true.” Asked why she spoke to archivist Nick Mayes about the contents of the boxes when she did not know him, Carter said “that’s just me”. The witness then slipped from her chair and had a fit of laughter which caused her testimony to halt for a few seconds before she said. “I’m composed now.”

The defendant was then asked when she had decided to emigrate to Australia. Carter told the court that her family had a visa to enter the country and this was due to expire in Febuary 2012. In November, Carter confirmed, she and her husband flew to Australia to look for a rental property before flying back via Singapore. On the way back, Carter said, she received a text from her son telling her he had been interviewed by police. When they returned home five police officers arrived, searched her home and took a statement. “I didn’t think I would have any further dealings with the police after that.” Carter said she later phoned Brooks and told her “not to worry” as the boxes contained her beauty column files.

The family, Carter said, planned to permanently move to Australia in January 2012. A few days before they were due to leave police officers arrived at her home and arrested her. “It was not very nice, I was swabbed and they took my passport from me.” After having been kept in the cells for four hours Carter was interviewed with her lawyer. She was upset to hear, the court was told, that news of her arrest had been leaked to the press. “I didn’t want my children to find out,” she said. Carter agreed that there were “a number of errors” in what she told police but denied these were “deliberate lies”. Police, the witness said, still had her passport “after two and a half years”. On her release, Carter said, she told her family to go to Australia as this was just a “hiccup” and she would join them later. Once she was charged, a clearly emotional Carter told the court, her family came home. “I was very ill at the time,” Carter said.

The defence counsel closed his examination by asking Carter about her relationship with Brooks. Carter said she did know that Brooks had named her as a beneficiary of her company insurance policy, but was unaware of of her relationship with Andy Coulson. Asked by her counsel if she would do anything to protect her former boss, Carter said “I would not commit a crime for Rebekah Brooks” and went on to describe her as “the kindest most genuine person there is”. Carter told the court she did not believe Brooks would have anything to do with phone hacking. Carter’s evidence in chief then ended.

Court then took a short break.

When proceedings resumed Jonathan Laidlaw QC, for Rebekah Brooks, rose to cross-examine Mrs Carter. The witness confirmed that the former editor rarely used notebooks and when she did these would be thrown away. What documents were kept and which retained was not discussed with her former boss. “[It] was my business not hers,” the court was told. The defence barrister then asked the witness about the crates of documents she took to Rebekah Brooks’ home in late July 2011. Carter said that Jane Viner, News International’s facilities manager, supervised the process, adding: “I did not want to take away anything I shouldn’t.” The defendant said the papers were mostly personal items, such as bank statements. The witness said she had left anything that related to News International business apart from a “few letters, and Brooks’ desk diaries”.

The defence barrister suggested to Carter that she had never mentioned the seven boxes taken from the archive to Brooks. “That’s correct,” the witness replied. Finally Laidlaw asked the witness about her description of the seven archived boxes as “Rebekah Brooks nee Wade notebooks 1995 to 2007″. Carter said there was a black notebook containing contact details owned by Brooks from 1995 in the boxes and another from 2007 in the boxes. The defence QC showed Carter a notebook from 2007 and the witness confirmed that was one of the ones she was referring too in the boxes description “there was no thought process about what we kept.” Carter said/ “It was a Sunday and we just wanted them out of the way.” Laidlaw then ended his cross-examination.

Andrew Edis QC, for the prosecution, then rose to question Carter. He asked the witness to look at one of the archive boxes in question and asked her to confirm that she put six pads in each and suggested that this would not fill each box. “I was just filling in boxes,” she replied. “Did you file three empty boxes,” Edis asked. “No I didn’t,” the defendant answered. Edis then asked Carter about her first statement to police on how many books were stored and asked why the desk diaries were archived. “They shouldn’t have been,” Carter agreed. “I did get things wrong in my statement but I was trying to help the police,” she added. Edis asked why a “call back list” was kept. “It had telephone numbers in and belonged to Rebekah,” was the reply. The prosecution QC suggested that this would be “worthless” after the call backs were made. “You didn’t actually need it,” Edis suggested, “it was just put out of the way”. Carter replied: “I think I can judge what’s needed, that’s my job.” “There is no reason you couldn’t have just thrown this away,” Edis suggested and then moved on.

The defendant was then shown a file-o-fax she has previously said was in one of the archived boxes. He suggested to Carter that this had not been used since 1997. “So why didn’t you throw it away?” The defendant replied: “I didn’t think that should be thrown away, it was Rebekah’s.” Edis asked: “there must have been a reason, you threw away her stuff all the time”. “I didn’t throw away Rebekah’s personal items,” Carter replied. Edis suggested this was a business diary and Carter should not have taken it back to Brooks after she had left the company. “I made mistakes,” Carter said.

Edis then asked about the weight of the boxes, questioning if she needed help from Gary Keegan as the boxes were “seven full heavy boxes,” he suggested. The defence QC asked the witness about her statement that she was not concerned about the police investigation. “I’d done nothing wrong,” Carter replied. “You’d took away seven boxes labelled Rebekah Brooks notebooks and destroyed most of the contents,” Edis said, and asked if she had a copy of her son’s statement to the police when the arrived at her home. “Maybe I did,” Carter replied. Edis then asked the witness about her own statement to police in November 2011 in which she stated she only removed the boxes as the archive had asked her to take them back. “Did you ever want to have the boxes,” Edis asked. “Probably not because it was my stuff so I didn’t need it,” Carter replied. Edis asked the witness about her testimony yesterday that she did want the boxes as there may have been information about a “trademark dispute” she was involved in. “There may have been something in there,” Carter said. “You either wanted these boxes or not,” Edis asked adding, “is this trademark dispute something you actually remember or just something you invented?” “That could have been something I thought of,” the defendant replied.

The prosecution barrister then asked the witness about her statement that Brooks was at a “boot camp” on the week she retrieved the boxes. “That’s just a lie,” he suggested. “I made I mistake,” Carter replied, adding: “That was my recollection and I got it wrong.” “You were hoping the police would not find out you took the boxes out,” the QC said, “as you did not know about the meticulous nature of the archiving system”. Edis went on “you did not have much time to get a story together” as she had only heard about her son being questioned while on a stop-over between flights in Singapore. “Did you phone Rebekah,” the QC asked. “At the time I wasn’t worried it was my stuff,” Carter replied. “Would you not want to tell her,” the barrister asked. “I’d done nothing wrong,” the witness insisted.

The Crown barrister pointed to another part of the statement where Carter said she had withdrawn the boxes as it “was quiet”. Edis told the court that this was the day after the announcement that the News of the World was to close. “Did they know you were sitting with your feet up,” the QC asked, suggesting “it was a busy day”. Carter agreed but said that Brooks was out of the office most of the day at meetings which gave her time to collect the boxes. The barrister suggested that as a PA Carter would be “told what to do” by Brooks and “there was never time for a cup of coffee and a chat”. The former PA said she would talk to Brooks in the morning but during the day she “would task me by email and text.” Edis asked: “The paper is closing, journalists are losing their jobs, your boss is holding a town hall meeting and you thought, ‘I’ll just attend to a bit of filing’?” That’s what happened, Carter said. Edis suggested to the witness “those boxes contained what it said on the tin, Rebekah’s notebooks”. “That’s not true,” Carter said.

The prosecution QC asked the witness about her statement to police when she said to police, “I’m leaving to go to Australia to work for another newspaper,” and asked if this was a News International title and “Rebekah had sorted this out for you”. Carter replied that she was not planning to work for the paper but agreed Brooks “paid for her flights as she wanted to say thank you to me”.

The barrister then asked the defendant about the police interview after her arrest in November 2012 and she agreed that she had a full opportunity to consult her lawyer and had been cautioned before being questioned including being told that if she did not mention something she later relied on in court this could harm her defence.

Court then rose for lunch

Phone-hacking trial: "Don"t let Rebekah resign" – court hears of Rupert ...