Rebekah Brooks £20m legal costs bid dropped

[limitedperiodonly]

Here's the link.

Curiouser and curiouser. And carefully written. I'd love to know what questions the judge put to News UK to make them drop it at the 11th hour.

It was nice of them not to want to put a burden on the public purse though. Almost made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside about the company. I imagine that must have been their only motivation.

That's in the previous article linked at the beginning btw.

I wonder if Charlie Brooks and Stuart Kuttner will drop their applications soon? They're also referred to in the previous link, and they were personal costs, not covered by News UK.

Thanks for that - more detail than I'd seen elsewhere.

"The surprise move, which came only a day before the matter was to be discussed in open court, came after Mr Justice Saunders asked for the appointment of an "Amicus", the legal term for a friend of the court, to help him decide if he could ask News UK a series of questions about "the relationship between News International and the News of the World and the conduct of News International," and if this should influence his decision on Brooks' application. "

And from another Drum article:

Mr Justice Saunders, was told by lawyers for News UK, who had paid Brooks legal costs, that they had "not felt willing to engage in an exercise that would potentially re-examine the background to the hacking trial." Counsel continued that they therefore did not wish to proceed with the legal action or take any money "from the public purse."

Well, no, they clearly DID want to take money from the public purse or wouldn't have applied for the costs in the first place.

But never let an occasion go by without claiming some high moral virtue for actions motivated by greed or guilt.

Fascinating. I'd love to see a counter claim from the 'public purse' to recoup the cost of all trials/investigation/time & money from the company ultimately responsible for the hacking it's staff were prosecuted over. Seeing as Coulson was convicted, and a good few others pled guilty, the least that should happen is the cost of the entire debacle should be met by News international/UK or whatever they are called. They certainly have the means to make it a worthwhile exercise

There is a God and he wears a wig

And as for this comment from racehorse trainer Charlie Brooks: "At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner the bookmakers pay you."

No, they don't. If they've made an error, especially one they suspect has been brought about by duplicity, they can legally withhold your 'winnings'. Which seemed to be Justice Saunders's point.

I'm surprised he doesn't know that. But then, there are a lot of things he doesn't know.

I am sure most of us agree that the loser should always pay the costs.
The rules changed recently which meant an MP could not recover many costs at all and it has been a very unfair change in the rules. They will only pay you the costs of a lawyer so cheap that lawyer probably would have lost your case and won't pay you the cost of normal good lawyers. It was a change I would hope most mumsnetters would lobby to have overturned. The change has given the state far too much power.

The rules changed recently which meant an MP could not recover many costs at all and it has been a very unfair change in the rules.

What is this case to which you refer Greengrow?

I agree that there have been changes to legal aid in the last year that mean that thousands of people in criminal courts will have their defences compromised.

That's disgraceful but a different matter.

Those people are generally not senior employees of News International or their spouses who have, how shall I say this, obscured investigations for eccentric reasons known only to themselves because they don't want to reveal it to the court.

But never let an occasion go by without claiming some high moral virtue for actions motivated by greed or guilt.

So you are saying that someone accused of a criminal offence by the state and declared not guilty should not be able to reclaim their costs from the state and that attempting to do so shows greed or guilt?

The state lost. In general that means the state should pay. I have no idea why the judge thought it necessary to ask questions about News UK and News International. The only questions usually considered are:

• did the defendant get off on a technicality. If the answer is yes they may not be awarded costs

• were the legal expenses necessary. In general the defendant will only get that part of their legal costs that the court considers was necessary for them to be properly represented

We don't know what questions the judge want to ask so it isn't clear whether or not they were relevant to these considerations.

Indeed. The state lost. That could be any of us.

The MP case which people have used to illustrate how perhaps the Government did not realise the nasty consequences of the law change (that you only recover very low legal fees if wrongly accused never mind the huge cost to your personal life and career which you tend not to get compensated for)? I cannot remember which MP it was now or public figure. They fought off the wrongly prosecution by the state but in the process one can be nearly bankrupted if you use the kind of law firm which is likely to be better than the very cheapest who might have lost you your case. You used to be able to recover about 2/3rd of your costs (and even that is arguably unfair) but now it's much much less.

No, I'm saying what I said.

News UK were entitled to made a claim for their costs from the state.

They chose to withdraw that claim because, in their own words, they had "not felt willing to engage in an exercise that would potentially re-examine the background to the hacking trial."

Which sounds like someone with something to hide. It doesn't have to be guilt of a specific crime with which someone's been charged, just that they know or suspect there there is relevant material they would prefer the public NOT to know.

Whichever way, in the case of New UK, which is what I was talking about, it was News UK's choice not to pursue the claim, not the state refusing to pay.

News UK promptly went on to claim that they "did not wish to... take any money 'from the public purse,'" having just made an attempt to take money from the public purse.

Although actually I'm happy to sub in a better term for "greed". "Wanting to acquire and keep hold of money" would be more accurate and less loaded, if less succinct.

Which sounds like someone with something to hide. It doesn't have to be guilt of a specific crime with which someone's been charged, just that they know or suspect there there is relevant material they would prefer the public NOT to know.

That's how I saw the issue over News UK's claim for Rebekah Brooks's costs. And I also agree that they tried to sound noble about withdrawing the claim. I admit I have grudging admiration for that cheek.

With Charlie Brooks and Stuart Kuttner, it appears from that report that the judge refused them because they weren't helpful to the police and CPS.

I am uneasy about the idea that a defendant should co-operate with the prosecutors, but it's not a good report, so I imagine the judge's reasoning was more sound.

If not, and he made a mistake in his ruling, I guess they can appeal. In fact, if he has erred, I think they should. They'll be doing the rest of us a public service in highlighting a judicial error. It will be interesting to see if they do.

the Government did not realise the nasty consequences of the law change

Oh, I'm pretty sure that they did. It doesn't normally apply to the likes of them though. Or so they believe. Most law-abiding people don't think they'll see the inside of a courtroom, except perhaps as a juror or witness, either, so don't care. They are cossetted in this view by relentless stories about legal aid abuses and fat cat lawyers in News UK and Associated outlets.

It comes as a bit of a shock when you need legal representation in the first place and then realise that the best, or even reasonably competent advice, is expensive.

So News UK would be doing something truly noble if they started a campaign about that. The News of The World has closed but they still have other outlets.

It's ignoble of me, I know, but I never tire of seeing the dawning of the consequences of his stupidity, and outrage that his privileged life should be interrupted by being asked footling questions, on Charlie Brooks' dumb face.