In Britain, ‘Stupidity’ Defense Has a Drawback

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/world/europe/in-britain-stupidity-defense-has-a-drawback.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — It was one of the more original defense strategies in Britain’s phone hacking trial: The lawyer representing Rebekah Brooks’s husband, Charles, told the jury that his client was simply too “stupid” to have committed the crime he was accused of, conspiring with his wife and others to pervert the course of justice by hiding evidence.

It worked. Mr. Brooks was acquitted in June, along with his wife, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire. But his “stupidity” came back to bite him on Wednesday, to the tune of $800,000.

After his acquittal, Mr. Brooks applied to the trial court to be reimbursed by the government for the legal costs of his defense. But Justice John Saunders was having none of it. Mr. Brooks’s behavior, the judge said, may not have been criminal, but it was so “incredibly stupid” that he wasn’t entitled to a penny.

Justice Saunders said Mr. Brooks had essentially framed himself: He had “brought suspicion on himself and others” by concealing material from police officers who were searching his property and by refusing to talk to the police. (The material he was hiding turned out to be his pornography collection.)

Needless to say, Mr. Brooks, a former racehorse trainer, was not happy with the ruling. “At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner, the bookmakers pay you,” he observed.

During the trial, his lawyer, Neil Saunders, described Mr. Brooks as a man who was “not academically gifted” and was prone to do “daft” things, like drinking a pint of dishwashing liquid to treat a hangover.

His client knew, Mr. Saunders said, that it was “stupid” to have hidden his pornography and a laptop computer in a parking garage the day his wife was arrested in 2011.

“Charlie is a man who is always up to going to the pub for a pint or two, or possibly three, and discussing winners of Ascot or benefits of cryotherapy — what he did that weekend is stupid, and he knows it,” Mr. Saunders said. “He is not, I would suggest, capable of committing a criminal offense.”

Mr. Brooks is not the only one in the case who is paying for clumsily suspicious behavior. Justice Saunders also rejected a request for reimbursement submitted by Stuart Kuttner, the former managing editor of The News of the World, the Sunday tabloid at the heart of the phone hacking scandal, after he was acquitted.

Both men, the judge said, “brought suspicion on themselves and misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against them was stronger than it was.”

This month, News Corporation, the parent company of Mr. Murdoch’s media properties, withdrew its request to be reimbursed for the legal bills it paid to defend employees who were acquitted, including Ms. Brooks.

Only one of the defendants in the eight-month trial was convicted: Ms. Brooks’ former lover and successor as editor of The News of the World, Andy Coulson, who was found guilty of conspiring to intercept mobile-phone voice mail messages, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.