This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/27/news-of-the-world-reporters-conviction-overturned

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
News of the World reporter’s conviction for paying for leaks overturned News of the World reporter’s conviction for paying for leaks overturned
(35 minutes later)
The controversial police investigation into journalists paying for leaks from public officials has suffered a hammer blow after the convictions of a News of the World reporter and a prison officer they paid for stories were quashed in the court of appeal.The controversial police investigation into journalists paying for leaks from public officials has suffered a hammer blow after the convictions of a News of the World reporter and a prison officer they paid for stories were quashed in the court of appeal.
The Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judge in England and Wales ruled on 26 March that the judge in the case, Judge Charles Wide, had misdirected the jury.The Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judge in England and Wales ruled on 26 March that the judge in the case, Judge Charles Wide, had misdirected the jury.
The judges at the same time rejected the appeal of another former reporter on the paper, Ryan Sabey, but he was given “liberty to apply” again on other grounds.The judges at the same time rejected the appeal of another former reporter on the paper, Ryan Sabey, but he was given “liberty to apply” again on other grounds.
They also ruled a jury note in the trial of the journalist and the prison officer complaining about an “aggressive” and “horrible” atmosphere in the deliberations room should have been shared with defence counsel.They also ruled a jury note in the trial of the journalist and the prison officer complaining about an “aggressive” and “horrible” atmosphere in the deliberations room should have been shared with defence counsel.
The prison officer, who is serving three years and a half years in jail, can now be freed. The prison officer, referred to in the ruling to as ABC, who is serving three years and a half years in jail, can now be freed.
A friend and co-defendant of the prison officer’s, who was sentenced to 30 weeks in prison, was released from jail on Wednesday. A friend and co-defendant of the prison officer’s [EFG], who was sentenced to 30 weeks in prison, was released from jail on Wednesday.
The journalist [IJK] who received a six-month sentence, suspended for a year, had only recently had a tag removed. None of the three can be named for legal reasons.
The Crown Prosecution Service was given until 4pm on Tuesday to decide if they were going to press for retrial of all three who were convicted in November on charges linked to misconduct in public office.
In their ruling, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales sitting with Mr Justice Cranston and Mr Justice William Davis, found Wide was not explicit enough in explaining how “serious” that misconduct had to be to amount to criminality.
In reviewing the original Old Bailey case, they found the judge in the case had told jurors there were four elements to consider.
In the third element, they had to be sure the prison officer committed misconduct to “such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the officer holder”.
Cranston and Davis ruled that this was not clear enough.
The judge should have explained to jurors that they had to assess the threshold between misconduct in public office and actual criminal behaviour.
The court of appeal judges said Wide could have done this in two ways.
The first was to tell the jury of “the need for them to reach a judgment that the misconduct is worthy of condemnation and punishment”.
The second was to tell them they have needed to judge the leak as “harming the public interest”.
“The judge did not expressly direct the jury in these terms,” they noted.
“As the third ingredient of the offence was a central element of the case against ABC, EFG, and IJK, and as it was not properly explained to the jury, there was a material misdirection,” they said.
They added: “We have set out our conclusion that there was a misdirection and considered very carefully whether it affected the safety of the conviction; the considerations were finely balanced, given the great care the judge took and overall approach taken by the judge and the parties in the case to the public interest.
“We have nonetheless concluded that in all the circumstances we cannot say that the jury would necessarily have convicted these appellants had they been directed in accordance with what we have set out.
“We must therefore quash the convictions.”
The judgment is a setback for the CPS, which has so far brought 24 tabloid journalists to trial over payments to public officials for tip-offs and leaks following the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Elveden investigation.
The two journalists are the only ones to have been found guilty by a jury. One other, Dan Evans, pleaded guilty, while the remainder were either acquitted or face a retrial after juries failed to reach verdicts.
The second journalist, Sabey, was found guilty of aiding and abetting a lance corporal in the same regiment as Prince Harry who had sold stories to the News of the World.
Among the stories he sold was one about a soldier who had dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit with swastika symbols.
Juror complained of ‘aggressive’ atmosphere
In the case of the first journalist, the judges also ruled that a jury note which showed “one juror was very concerned as to the way in which the deliberations were being conducted” should have been disclosed by the judge to counsel in the case.
The jury note, which can now be revealed for the first time was sent an hour after the jury were sent home on the second day of their deliberations.
“The discussions within the jury room have become aggressive and the atmosphere horrible,” said the juror who feared “reprisals” by two jurors on the panel.
“I went to speak and two other jurors rolled their eyes and stated ‘again’. Another juror told them to stop being rude and voices were raised.
“Additionally, a particular juror keeps insisting we go with a majority vote, despite being told otherwise repeatedly by several jurors and our foreman,” the note continued.
The juror went on to say that a fellow juror had “even got out a magazine” to read “while others were stating their points”.
The juror told the judge that it was “only the activity of two jurors” that was troubling, but “it is affecting the ability of us all to voice our opinions without fear of reprisal from them.”
In handing down their ruling, the judges ruled that the non-disclosure of the note “amounted to an irregularity” in the case.
However, they added they were “quite satisfied that the non-disclosure has no bearing on the safety of the conviction”.