Sunday, 28 June 2015
Murdoch Lawyer On The Carpet
When the twinkle-toed yet domestically combative Rebekah Brooks, and Murdoch Junior, barged in on the Independent’s then editor Simon Kellner for the heinous crime of running a front page before the 2010 General Election that simply said “Rupert Murdoch won’t decide this election. You will”, something that Kellner said “came straight out of the ‘Mafioso for Beginners’ handbook”, consequences were maybe not on her mind.
But consequences there have been, because the Indy has, since the revelations that led to the demise of the Screws and the Hacking Trial, become rather less afraid to publish and be damned when it comes to anything concerning Creepy Uncle Rupe. So it is that it’s the only paper thus far to let readers know that Tom Crone, legal eagle to the Screws at the height of its notoriety, is facing investigation by the Bar Standards Board.
As the Indy tells, “Mr Crone faces being disbarred by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) if it finds the way he handled the paper’s legal business brought his profession into disrepute. After the lengthy criminal trial, at which the former editor of the NOTW, Andy Coulson, was jailed, complaints about Mr Crone’s professional conduct were lodged with the BSB”. Several other Screws staff also got guilty.
Why has it taken until now for the BSB to act? “No action was taken by the board while it awaited a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service on whether formal charges would be brought against Mr Crone”. So - let’s get this straight - the CPS has been considering whether to charge Crone, which would, had they decided to go ahead, have led Rupe’s legal man to appear in the dock - like all the others.
And there’s more: “During the trial it was revealed that the personal safe of Mr Crone at News International’s London offices contained transcripts of the voicemails of David Blunkett, the former home secretary … During the trial at the Old Bailey, Coulson testified that he had told Mr Crone about the hacking of Mr Blunkett’s messages, which took place in 2004”. That might not be the only matter for the BSB to mull over.
There was also the evidence given by Murdoch Junior to the DCMS select committee: “James Murdoch, the former boss of the UK division of his father global’s media empire, told a parliamentary select committee in July 2011 that Mr Crone was one of two executives who he alleged had ‘misled him’ about substantial payments made to individuals to prevent the scale of phone hacking inside the NOTW becoming public”.
A company lawyer who, according to one of the top bosses, has “misled” him? That’s code for a less than full and frank disclosure, or, as ordinary people might call it, lying. What those on the DCMS select committee at the time - like, oh, I dunno, Tom Watson for instance - might make of that will be yet more interesting. Crone might end up counting himself lucky he secured a £300K payoff from the Murdoch empire.
There may be more to come on this one. Or even a lot more to come.
"A company lawyer who, according to one of the top bosses, has “misled” him?"
ReplyDeleteWas that the top boss who failed to open an imporatant email before replying, failed to see another email that Crone thought he had shown him at a meeting and also failed recognise that Gordon Taylor was not a member of the Royal Family (ie didn't for some unknown reason suss that other than Goodman's hacking of the Royal family had taken place?
Not that one? #Managementfail
The point about James Murdoch accusing Tom Crone of misleading him might be moot. In Nick Davies's "Hack Attack" book, it seems clear that Murdoch Jr was trying to stick to the line that he'd never been told why he was being advised to shell out £millions to settle early hacking cases, and that he'd never seen the "For Neville" email which was clear evidence of illegal activity being authorised. The book relates how Murdoch tripped himself up on 10 November 2011 when he admitted that he knew of the email which proved that the hacking was more widespread than just Clive Goodman, and that this was fatal to the company's defence.
ReplyDeleteThe entertaining quote is on pg368: "Mark Lewis … was called back to the committee and put the case against James in its clearest form: 'I think James Murdoch would like to give you the impression that he is mildly incompetent rather than thoroughly dishonest.'"
Still, there's plenty of other skeletons in Tom Crone's cupboard for him to deal with.
The point about James Murdoch accusing Tom Crone of misleading him might be moot. In Nick Davies's "Hack Attack" book, it seems clear that Murdoch Jr was trying to stick to the line that he'd never been told why he was being advised to shell out £millions to settle early hacking cases, and that he'd never seen the "For Neville" email which was clear evidence of illegal activity being authorised. The book relates how Murdoch tripped himself up on 10 November 2011 when he admitted that he knew of the email which proved that the hacking was more widespread than just Clive Goodman, and that this was fatal to the company's defence.
ReplyDeleteThe entertaining quote is on pg368: "Mark Lewis … was called back to the committee and put the case against James in its clearest form: 'I think James Murdoch would like to give you the impression that he is mildly incompetent rather than thoroughly dishonest.'"
Still, there's plenty of other skeletons in Tom Crone's cupboard for him to deal with.