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/may/25/andy-coulson-david-blunkett-knew-voicemails-were-hacked

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Andy Coulson knew David Blunkett voicemails were hacked, court hears Andy Coulson knew David Blunkett voicemails were hacked, court hears
(35 minutes later)
The former News of the World editor Andy Coulson saw transcripts of messages left by the Labour home secretary David Blunkett on a married woman’s voicemail that he knew had been obtained by phone hacking, a court has heard.The former News of the World editor Andy Coulson saw transcripts of messages left by the Labour home secretary David Blunkett on a married woman’s voicemail that he knew had been obtained by phone hacking, a court has heard.
Neville Thurlbeck, the paper’s former chief reporter who revealed Blunkett’s affair with Kimberly Quinn (now Fortier) in 2004, told jurors at Edinburgh’s high court Coulson listened to at least one voicemail of Blunkett – and possibly “a handful”. Neville Thurlbeck, the paper’s former chief reporter who revealed Blunkett’s affair with Kimberly Quinn (now Fortier) in 2004, told jurors at Edinburgh’s high court that Coulson listened to at least one voicemail of Blunkett – and possibly “a handful”.
Thurlbeck said Coulson reacted with “extreme caution” when he called the editor while he was on holiday to tell him about the potential scoop. He was concerned that they would need to establish a public interest defence for breaking a story about Blunkett’s affair, Thurlbeck said, and was also concerned about the invasion of privacy.Thurlbeck said Coulson reacted with “extreme caution” when he called the editor while he was on holiday to tell him about the potential scoop. He was concerned that they would need to establish a public interest defence for breaking a story about Blunkett’s affair, Thurlbeck said, and was also concerned about the invasion of privacy.
Coulson is being prosecuted for allegedly lying under oath about his knowledge of phone hacking in the 2010 perjury trial of former Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan. Coulson denies the charge.Coulson is being prosecuted for allegedly lying under oath about his knowledge of phone hacking in the 2010 perjury trial of former Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan. Coulson denies the charge.
The court heard on Monday that Thurlbeck pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to hack phones and had served 37 days in jail last year.The court heard on Monday that Thurlbeck pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to hack phones and had served 37 days in jail last year.
Giving evidence as a prosecution witness, Thurlbeck said the NoW’s private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, had played recordings of between 15 and 25 messages left by Blunkett on Quinn’s phone.Giving evidence as a prosecution witness, Thurlbeck said the NoW’s private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, had played recordings of between 15 and 25 messages left by Blunkett on Quinn’s phone.
“Having heard the voicemails, what did you do?” asked prosecutor Richard Goddard. “I rang Andy Coulson. He was on holiday. I told him that I’d been played the voicemails; I’d been played some voicemail messages left by David Blunkett,” replied Thurlbeck.“Having heard the voicemails, what did you do?” asked prosecutor Richard Goddard. “I rang Andy Coulson. He was on holiday. I told him that I’d been played the voicemails; I’d been played some voicemail messages left by David Blunkett,” replied Thurlbeck.
Goddard asked: “Did you tell him what was in the voicemails?” “Yes,” replied Thurlbeck.Goddard asked: “Did you tell him what was in the voicemails?” “Yes,” replied Thurlbeck.
“Did you tell him where you got the voicemails from?” asked Goddard. “Yes,” was Thurlbeck’s answer. “Did you tell him where you got the voicemails from?” asked Goddard. “Yes,” Thurlbeck said.
When asked what Thurlbeck told Coulson about the voicemails, he said: “I told him that they had been intercepted by our investigator and I had heard them and they indicated there was a very strong story.” When asked what he told Coulson about the voicemails, Thurlbeck said: “I told him that they had been intercepted by our investigator and I had heard them and they indicated there was a very strong story.”
Thurlbeck said he did not give Coulson the full name of the private investigator and merely referred to him as “Glenn”. Asked by Goddard if Coulson had issued him with any instructions after hearing about the phone hacking, Thurlbeck replied: “Stop.”Thurlbeck said he did not give Coulson the full name of the private investigator and merely referred to him as “Glenn”. Asked by Goddard if Coulson had issued him with any instructions after hearing about the phone hacking, Thurlbeck replied: “Stop.”
“He told you to stop did he?” said Goddard. “Yes,” was Thurlbeck’s reply. “He told you to stop did he?” said Goddard. “Yes,” replied Thurlbeck.
Asked what Coulson’s reaction was, Thurlbeck said “extreme caution”, adding that “he wanted to discuss it fully when he returned from holiday”.Asked what Coulson’s reaction was, Thurlbeck said “extreme caution”, adding that “he wanted to discuss it fully when he returned from holiday”.
“What did he think about the potential for a news story?” asked Goddard. “Like me he thought potential was there. However, many public interest defences had to be successfully proven before we felt confident about progressing the investigation.” “What did he think about the potential for a news story?” asked Goddard. Thurlbeck replied: “Like me he thought potential was there. However, many public interest defences had to be successfully proven before we felt confident about progressing the investigation.”
Thurlbeck said there was no “deep analysis” of the source of the story: “Andy Coulson’s primary concern was that we could be breaching the home secretary’s privacy and therefore on that basis we have to examine whether or not any public interest defences can be established before we proceed.” Thurlbeck said there was no “deep analysis” of the source of the story, telling the court: “Andy Coulson’s primary concern was that we could be breaching the home secretary’s privacy and therefore on that basis we have to examine whether or not any public interest defences can be established before we proceed.”
Thurlbeck told jurors Coulson was played a recording of Blunkett at least once. “Part of me thinks it is possible that there were a handful of occasions when portions, perhaps, of voicemails may have been played back to Andy down a telephone line or in an office, but I can’t say with any exactitude,” he said.Thurlbeck told jurors Coulson was played a recording of Blunkett at least once. “Part of me thinks it is possible that there were a handful of occasions when portions, perhaps, of voicemails may have been played back to Andy down a telephone line or in an office, but I can’t say with any exactitude,” he said.
Thurlbeck said it was agreed the “David Blunkett project” could continue after lawyers said there was a public interest defence for hacking. He said it was agreed the “David Blunkett project” could continue after lawyers said there was a public interest defence for hacking.
He then proceeded to hack Blunkett’s messages himself from his home after being instructed by a senior NoW journalist – who cannot be named for legal reasons – to “transcribe them and bring them into the office”.He then proceeded to hack Blunkett’s messages himself from his home after being instructed by a senior NoW journalist – who cannot be named for legal reasons – to “transcribe them and bring them into the office”.
Thurlbeck agreed with Goddard that there were “over 70” messages transcribed “between 19 July and they carry on every single day till 9 August”. These transcripts and those of Mulcaire’s hacks were seen by Coulson, Thurlbeck said. Thurlbeck agreed with Goddard that there were “over 70” messages transcribed “between 19 July and they carry on every single day till 9 August” 2004. These transcripts and those of Mulcaire’s hacks were seen by Coulson, Thurlbeck said.
Goddard asked Thurlbeck several times about why he had previously told a court in Scotland that he had told Coulson Mulcaire’s full name during that first telephone conversation.Goddard asked Thurlbeck several times about why he had previously told a court in Scotland that he had told Coulson Mulcaire’s full name during that first telephone conversation.
In a statement, sworn before a judge in Glasgow, he had been asked to be as precise as possible about what he told Coulson that day in 2013. “I told him that Glenn Mulcaire had intercepted the voicemails of Kimberly Quinn,” Thurlbeck had replied.In a statement, sworn before a judge in Glasgow, he had been asked to be as precise as possible about what he told Coulson that day in 2013. “I told him that Glenn Mulcaire had intercepted the voicemails of Kimberly Quinn,” Thurlbeck had replied.
Goddard pressed him as to why in the 87-page sworn statement, dated March 2015, he said he gave Coulson Mulcaire’s full name but was now saying he would only have referred to him as Glenn.Goddard pressed him as to why in the 87-page sworn statement, dated March 2015, he said he gave Coulson Mulcaire’s full name but was now saying he would only have referred to him as Glenn.
He said the procurator fiscal in the Glasgow court had used the full name in his questioning, not him. “Again, they aren’t direct quotes,” Thurlbeck said. “I am telling you under oath that I didn’t name the full name, I was calling him Glenn, the procurator fiscal was throwing in the name Glenn Mulcaire,” he said. He said the procurator fiscal in the Glasgow court had used the full name in his questioning, not him. “Again, they aren’t direct quotes,” Thurlbeck said. “I am telling you under oath that I didn’t name the full name, I was calling him Glenn, the procurator fiscal was throwing in the name Glenn Mulcaire.”
After a short break the prosecutor returned to the the conflicting statements, pressing him again on the matter. “The ambiguity did not to me at that time seem to be of any significance,” he said.After a short break the prosecutor returned to the the conflicting statements, pressing him again on the matter. “The ambiguity did not to me at that time seem to be of any significance,” he said.
The trial continues.The trial continues.