ad: Annual 2024 Now Open For Entries!
*

The Phones And The Fallout. What we should learn from the hacking trial.

Published by

Following a lengthy process and an awful lot of money, we now know Andy Coulson is guilty of conspiring to intercept voice-mail messages; he is also to be retried on the remaining charges. Rebekah Brooks has been acquitted though - and this is not pleasing some folk, a great many of whom have taken to social media to say as much. Most of them are talking nonsense.

Opinions were pouring into networks and forums while the verdicts were still being delivered. Indeed, the judge was made aware of this, and paused proceedings to caution against such actions. While this was a blanket warning, it actually included the Prime Minister, who was busy issuing his statements prematurely. As Mr Justice Saunders pointed out, a case is still in progress until all the verdicts are in, and is therefore ‘sub-judice’. All comment is forbidden and any that are made place the offender in 'contempt of court'. It’s highly unlikely everyone who posted their thoughts during that period will be prosecuted, but some intervention is not impossible - particularly now it is clear there is to be a re-trial.

'Many of those objecting to the outcome of the trial are obviously unfamiliar with the law’s inherent subtleties.'

All that aside, a swathe of commentators managed to completely misunderstand what had happened. Complaining that you don’t believe Brooks to be innocent is arguably, your right. But British courts do not pronounce a person innocent. They ask a jury to decide whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficiently persuasive to conclude a specific offence was committed by the accused. In essence, the jury isn’t judging the person, but the strength of the case against them. In this instance, they felt the facts explained by the prosecution were insufficient to convict Brooks. A jury is not required to use the word ‘innocent’, just ‘not guilty’. (In Scottish law, there is a concept of ‘not proven’). A proportion of those objecting to the outcome of the trial are obviously unfamiliar with the law’s inherent subtleties.

As we’d expect, a hefty proportion of amateur commentators cried conspiracy, but the suggestion that Brooks gained her freedom and good name because of her closeness to David Cameron, and her status as Rupert Murdoch’s protégée, holds less water than a paper thimble. For that to be true, every member of the jury would need to have been fixed, without the judge, or anyone else, noticing or even suspecting as much. At the same time, the conspirators would have had to decide that Andy Coulson was to be found guilty, to the benefit of… who exactly? Not the government, that’s for certain. Nor Murdoch. Anyone managing to square that circle would be harbouring ideas sufficiently illogical to give David Icke pause for thought.

Throughout the trial one could perceive a hungry wish that Rebekah Brooks would be uncovered as the handmaiden of her wicked masters, gleefully carrying out their nefarious demands in exchange for riches and career glory. Now, I am no apologist for the tabloid press. Almost without exception I find their tone, attitude and behaviour distasteful, bullying and occasionally, repellent. But when we put a person on trial, it’s crucial that preconceptions are set aside. Decisions which may deprive a person of their liberty, MUST be made on the basis of proven fact. This is the treatment we’d want for ourselves, and was the treatment afforded Brooks and Coulson. The fact the verdicts differed so wildly, demonstrates that blind justice was the driving force. Whatever the desired outcome (desired by people who were not in the courtroom), the actual result stemmed properly and directly from the evidence presented. All other considerations are just tweets in the wind.

Magnus Shaw is a copywriter, blogger and consultant

Website
On Creativepool

Comments

More Leaders

*

Leaders

Inspiring Female Leaders: An Interview with RAPP CEO Gabrielle Ludzker

Gabrielle Ludzker is not just any CEO. The current head honcho at customer experience agency RAPP has spent her career breaking away from the traditional corporate CEO stereotype. and leads to inspire rule breakers. Gabby is an inspirational rule...

Posted by: Benjamin Hiorns
ad: Annual 2024 Now Open For Entries!