Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Jut
May 16, 2005

by Ralp

Brown Moses posted:

A jury of 9 women and 3 men has been sworn in.
The judge has also warned the jury not to look at this week's Private Eye, and to avoid social media.

The prosecution's opening statement will be read tomorrow at 2pm, and will be live tweeted.

What's up with Private Eye this week?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hexa
Dec 10, 2004

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom

Brown Moses posted:

The judge has also warned the jury not to look at this week's Private Eye, and to avoid social media.

What in particular is in this week's Eye?

Also I find it hilarious that they're not allowed to read something which will have been checked and double-checked by the Eye's libel specialists...

Andy Impey
Sep 2, 2011
It's not about libel, it'll be about ensuring a fair trial. People have gone to prison for Googling defendants in trials they were jurors on so it stands to reason that the judge will do his best to stop jurors reading outside stuff about the defendants.

Same reason the Gawker piece is blocked in the UK.

twoot
Oct 29, 2012

glitchkrieg posted:

What in particular is in this week's Eye?

Also I find it hilarious that they're not allowed to read something which will have been checked and double-checked by the Eye's libel specialists...

Answers Me
Apr 24, 2012
The only source is Guido, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it yet, but these seems really odd: http://order-order.com/2013/10/29/exclusive-cops-trying-to-remove-private-eye-from-shops/

ultrabindu
Jan 28, 2009
So what are the odds of the jury being sequestered at some point then?

duz
Jul 11, 2005

Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost


Andy Impey posted:

It's not about libel, it'll be about ensuring a fair trial. People have gone to prison for Googling defendants in trials they were jurors on so it stands to reason that the judge will do his best to stop jurors reading outside stuff about the defendants.

Same reason the Gawker piece is blocked in the UK.

Yeah, as a juror, you're supposed to make your decision based only on what was presented in court. Easiest way to do that is to avoid anything remotely related to the case.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

As far as I'm aware their only asking for copies of private Eye near the court to be taken off sale.

Plasmafountain
Jun 17, 2008

Brown Moses posted:

As far as I'm aware their only asking for copies of private Eye near the court to be taken off sale.

Its at Southwark, right? I wont be able to pick up a copy of the Eye when I head into uni then. :argh:

hexa
Dec 10, 2004

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom

duz posted:

Yeah, as a juror, you're supposed to make your decision based only on what was presented in court. Easiest way to do that is to avoid anything remotely related to the case.

What if the current issue of Private Eye was presented in court? :smuggo:

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Today's news

quote:

Phone-hacking judge: 'Not just defendants on trial, British justice is on trial'

The trial of R v Rebekah Brooks and others took an important step forward today as a jury of three men and nine women was selected and sworn in.

The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, instructed the jury that it was a central principle that cases are decided only on the evidence given in court, and remarked that given the pre-trial publicity it was “not just the defendants on trial, British justice is on trial”.

Mr Justice Saunders described the defendants in the case as “well-known public figures” and the volume of pre-trial publicity as “unprecedented”. He instructed the jury to put anything they heard out of their minds and rely on what they heard in court as this evidence could be properly examined and tested. The judge described much of what could be found on the case on social media as “fuelled by speculation” and much of the comments on websites about the defendants as “offensive and demeaning”.

Saunders also told the jury that this week's issue of the magazine Private Eye had “seen fit” to place a picture of Mrs Brooks on its front page. He instructed the jury that it was “meant to be satirical, but you ignore it, it’s not relevant” adding, it’s "a joke in especially bad taste”. (cont)

He's also instructed them to be careful when they use social media, not ban it all together.

Mr. Squishy
Mar 22, 2010

A country where you can always get richer.
Private Eye must be pretty pleased to be the only press which is possibly prejudicial.

Jedit
Dec 10, 2011

Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Mr. Squishy posted:

Private Eye must be pretty pleased to be the only press which is possibly prejudicial.

Not to mention honest.

I wonder where my new Eye has got to? My last copy was the Press Regulation Special.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Another blog's coverage of today's events
http://davidbanksmedialaw.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/phone-hacking-trial-day-2/

Necrothatcher
Mar 26, 2005




A lot of the jury directions are the court covering their asses in case anything fucks up down the line with a juror. You don't want to get 3 months in and then have to declare a mistrial because a juror did something prejudicial to the case that could've been foreseen.

If it happens and it's a juror's fault that's one thing. If it happens and it's the court staff or Saunders J's fault that's another thing altogether. With this many counsel you're looking at something like £20k+ (could be much more, this trial is pretty unique) a day in costs and you really don't want the MoJ on the hook for that.

Necrothatcher fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Oct 29, 2013

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Great bit of court art



Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Priscilla Coleman appears to be the courtroom artist, so follow her for the latest images.

Blogs covering today's action
David Banks
Press Reform

The prosecution's opening statement should be live-tweeted from about 2pm onwards. Feel free to TV-IV it.

vanity slug
Jul 20, 2010

What's up with the poppies?

Total Meatlove
Jan 28, 2007

:japan:
Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Jeoh posted:

What's up with the poppies?

Remembrance Day is coming, and like Christmas, Easter and Halloween it creeps earlier and earlier into shops and on TV.

Chocolate Teapot
May 8, 2009

Jeoh posted:

What's up with the poppies?

The most important thing in British media is to make it look like you care.

Alternatively, the worst thing you can do is wear a white poppy, and show that you've given some thought to it (of a different kind).

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

The Pressbof's (Press Standards Board of Finance) attempts to scupper the Royal Charter have just been thrown out by the judge.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

I've put together a Twitter list of journalists covering it at the Old Bailey.

Wiggly Wayne DDS
Sep 11, 2010



Brown Moses posted:

I've put together a Twitter list of journalists covering it at the Old Bailey.
Thanks BM, makes it much easier to follow along

e: based on a couple of tweets about the opening proceeding they seem proper hosed

Wiggly Wayne DDS fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 30, 2013

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Getting to the meat of the alleged cover up (various Twitter accounts)

quote:

Edis on Charge 7 "prosecuting say..... material police would have wanted were cleared out of Brooks' country home and taken to NI offices"
Brooks conspired with her assistant Cheryl Carter to remove her journalist notebooks from the archive and they have disappeared.
Jury are told on the Friday before the NoTW closed Rebekah Brooks' PA, Cheryl Carter removed her journalistic notebooks from an archive.
Edis: she did something similar with husband Charles, Mark Hanna, head of security and others, clearing computers out of her country home.
Edis: "Material was collected from their London flat and taken to the same place.' (NI offices at Thomas More Square
Edis "This was material in possession of CEO of the company.... and would have been relevant to police inquiry."
Mr Edis: "That is a classic case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the prosecution say."
Edis "This was discovered as a result of an accident which was rather bad luck for the conspirators."
The jury are told Mrs Brooks' notebooks have never been found.
Mr Edis says Rebekah Brooks, Cheryl Carter, Charles Brooks and Mark Hanna are charged with the perverting the course of justice charge.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Yeah, gotta say it's looking pretty bad for the defendants already

quote:

BREAKING: Miskiw, Thurlbeck, Weatherup - News Editors have all pleaded guilty to count one
Glenn Mulcaire has pleaded guilty to hacking phone of Milly Dowler, Crown tell jury.
Greg Miskiw, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup - NoW staffers have pleaded guilty to phone hacking conspiracy we can now reveal
Edis "That explains why you're not trying anyone in that first count list... and this is proof of a conspiracy"
Edis: Greg Miskiw, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup, NOTW newsdesk Editors, have also pleaded guilty to hacking conspiracy
Three NoW news editors have admitted phone hacking, say Crown - Miskiw, Thurlbeck and Weatherup.
Jury told that private investigator Glenn Muclaire has pleaded guilty this year to hacking phones, so he doesn't appear at this trial.
Guess the Guardian was right all alone about the NotW hacking Milly Dowler's phone, despite what some people insisted.

Daveman23
Aug 4, 2003

Brown Moses posted:


Guess the Guardian was right all alone about the NotW hacking Milly Dowler's phone, despite what some people insisted.

I thought that the NotW and the police both acknowledged they had accessed her voicemail but it was the Guardian's claims that they had deleted messages (ostensibly to make room for any new ones to be left) that was disputed.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Daveman23 posted:

I thought that the NotW and the police both acknowledged they had accessed her voicemail but it was the Guardian's claims that they had deleted messages (ostensibly to make room for any new ones to be left) that was disputed.

Some people insisted the Guardian made it all up, mainly idiots though.

Daveman23
Aug 4, 2003

Brown Moses posted:

Some people insisted the Guardian made it all up, mainly idiots though.

Ah, there's no accounting for idiots.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

quote:

Three ex-Murdoch journalists plead guilty to phone hacking

Three former senior journalists from Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid the News of the World have pleaded guilty to charges relating to phone-hacking, the trial of two of the media mogul's former editors heard on Wednesday.

Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch's former British newspaper chief and Prime Minister David Cameron's ex-media head Andy Coulson are on trial at London's Old Bailey court accused of conspiring to illegally access voicemail messages on mobile phones, charges they deny.

The court was told on Wednesday that ex-chief correspondent Neville Thurlbeck, former assistant news editor James Weatherup, and ex-news editor Greg Miskiw had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to intercept communications at earlier hearings.

Their guilty pleas, which had not previously been reportable, are the first public admissions by former News of the World journalists since police launched an inquiry in 2011 into allegations that staff on the Murdoch paper had hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians and victims of crime.
It seems at this point it comes down to whether or not the jury believes the editors were unaware of what was going.

Plavski
Feb 1, 2006

I could be a revolutionary
And no-one in their right mind would believe that. So let us hope the jury has been properly screened.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

They're making the point now Glenn Mulcaire was paid £100,000 a year, and that would have had to have been authorised by the highest levels at the NotW.

Sex Vicar
Oct 11, 2007

I thought this was a swingers party...

Brown Moses posted:

Some people insisted the Guardian made it all up, mainly idiots though.

I'm waiting for the hand wringing on the front pages tonight considering the people who insisted it was made up usually worked for Mr. Dacre and co. Should be hilarious reading.

Also Mulcaire had recorded voicemails from convicted Au Pair Louise Woodward in his possession when he was arrested. The type of smoking gun seems to have been a shotgun it seems.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

The prosecution says they've recovered a lot of recorded voice-mails from Mulcaire as well, that doesn't look good for him or his employer.

notaspy
Mar 22, 2009

He seems to be using the argument of 'the editors had to know' not presenting evidance that they /did/ know.

But it looks like Coulson is completely hosed, which is the best one due to him being hired by the PM.

The others are just icing, sweet, sweet icing.

ewe2
Jul 1, 2009

I have no idea how the defence plans to counter this tidal wave of evidence, because it stretches deniability to a snapping point.

A Winner is Jew
Feb 14, 2008

by exmarx

Brown Moses posted:

Getting to the meat of the alleged cover up (various Twitter accounts)

Wow, yeah they're pretty much hosed. Destroying evidence usually means the judge will direct juries to think of the most damming things that could have been contained in that evidence for which ever side was in possession of them when they were destroyed, then consider it's true. Well that's what happens in the US anyway.

Teddybear
May 16, 2009

Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!


A Winner is Jew posted:

Wow, yeah they're pretty much hosed. Destroying evidence usually means the judge will direct juries to think of the most damming things that could have been contained in that evidence for which ever side was in possession of them when they were destroyed, then consider it's true. Well that's what happens in the US anyway.

That has to be my favorite rule in American evidence. I don't think it's "the most damning things," though, but it's the most reasonable negative inference. So if it's, say, a case of embezzlement, if you burn your accountbooks so that the prosecution can't access them, the prosecution is allowed to present that as evidence that the accountbooks would have incriminated the defendant.

Then again, I am an extraordinarily bad law student, so I could be talking straight out my arse.

willie_dee
Jun 21, 2010
I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries
What's a Royal charter and what does this now mean? Are the press now forced to apologise for mistakes with the same level of prominence as the original story?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24746137

It seems the newspapers wanted to stop it so it's probably a good thing.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

This might answer your question, Royal charters: what are they and how do they work?.

Steven Nott managed to get himself in trouble on Twitter after commenting on the guilt of one of the defendants on Twitter when he was at the Old Bailey yesterday

quote:

I've been issued with a contempt of court warning and would like to make it clear that EVERYONE is being watched for prejudicial tweets.
I would suggest you only RETWEET genuine sources and keep your thoughts to yourself if tweeting #hackingtrial material.
I'm taking this opportunity to apologise to all concerned and I deeply regret my actions.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Plasmafountain
Jun 17, 2008

ewe2 posted:

I have no idea how the defence plans to counter this tidal wave of evidence, because it stretches deniability to a snapping point.

Man, you should have watched the original leveson inquiry testimony. "I do not/can not recall (exactly)" was said so many times the participants might as well have had it on a tape recorder in their pocket so they didnt wear their vocal cords out.

  • Locked thread