1
2 (2.00 pm)
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, Mr Jay.
4 MR JAY: Sir, this afternoon's witness is Mr Coulson,
5 please.
6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you.
7 MR ANDREW EDWARD COULSON (sworn)
8 Questions by MR JAY
9 MR JAY: Your full name, please, Mr Coulson.
10 A. Andrew Edward Coulson.
11 Q. I ask you to turn up your witness statement, which is
12 dated 1 May of this year. If you look at the last
13 paragraph and underneath it you'll see a signature which
14 is yours, with a date and a statement of truth. The
15 statement of truth is given within the constraints
16 imposed on you by the ongoing police investigation and
17 lack of access to documents; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I'll first of all attempt a short timeline of your
20 career. You started working as a journalist in 1989; is
21 that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Between 1994 and 1998, you edited the Bizarre column at
24 the Sun; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1
1 Q. The year 2000, you were deputy editor of the News of the
2 World under Rebekah Wade as she then was; is that
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. January 2003 you were appointed editor of the News of
6 the World. On 26 January 2007, you resigned. Around
7 June 2007 -- we'll come to the exact date when you give
8 your evidence -- you were appointed Director of
9 Communications to the Conservative Party; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You started work, I think, on 9 July 2007, and after the
12 last General Election, I think on 12 May 2010, you were
13 appointed Director of Communications at Downing Street;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you resigned as Director of Communications on
17 26 January 2011.
18 Can I ask you this general question first of all,
19 Mr Coulson: there are reports about that you have been
20 keeping a personal diary in the style of
21 Mr Alastair Campbell, which might, as it were, be
22 a contemporaneous record of relevant events,
23 particularly between July 2007 and January 2011. Is
24 that correct or not?
25 A. No.
2
1 Q. So in terms of how your witness statement has been
2 prepared, you've had to rely on your memory,
3 self-evidently. Are there any other documents that
4 you've had access to which might have assisted?
5 A. There were some notes that I would take as I -- you
6 know, in the course of my work, both from opposition and
7 government.
8 Q. So these are manuscript or computer records, are they?
9 A. No, they're notebooks.
10 Q. Notebooks. And have you had access to those notebooks
11 when you have prepared your statement or not?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You have been arrested in connection with
14 Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden, so I will not
15 be asking questions which bear on those matters, do you
16 understand?
17 Can I ask you some background questions? It's clear
18 from your statement that you were, perhaps still are,
19 close friends with Rebekah Brooks; is that right?
20 A. Yes. We haven't spoken for a while for obvious reasons.
21 Q. Can I ask you about the frequency of your interaction,
22 particularly after July 2007. About how often would you
23 speak to her?
24 A. It would depend. I think I've scheduled the sort of
25 meetings that we had, social meetings that we had, but
3
1 we would talk now and then. I wouldn't say even that we
2 spoke every week. There were times when we didn't speak
3 for quite some time, but it was -- I'd say that we spoke
4 over that period of time regularly, I think is the word
5 I'd use.
6 Q. Did you communicate by text message with her?
7 A. Occasionally.
8 Q. By email?
9 A. Occasionally.
10 Q. And then obviously by mobile phone; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would it be fair to say that you knew what each other's
13 respective political standpoints were?
14 A. Well, she knew I worked for the Conservatives, so that
15 was pretty clear. As to her political allegiances, you
16 know, the -- in terms of her period of editorship at the
17 Sun, she was supportive of the Labour Party, and
18 obviously she was chief executive when the Sun then
19 changed its allegiance to the Conservative Party. As to
20 her personal views, her personal beliefs, how she voted,
21 I have no idea.
22 Q. Do you have any insight into her personal political
23 beliefs or not?
24 A. No, not beyond the odd conversation that we'd had, but
25 I guess the question is, if I might be so bold, how did
4
1 she vote, I have no idea.
2 Q. Was she someone who you felt was close to certain
3 politicians?
4 A. Yes, I think through the course of her work she was
5 close to politicians, yes.
6 Q. We'll come to that in a moment. When you took over as
7 editor of the News of the World in 2003, which aspects
8 of the culture there, if any, did you want to change?
9 A. I don't remember wanting to change any of the cultural
10 aspects. The main change I instigated on becoming
11 editor was a cosmetic one. I wanted to redesign the
12 paper.
13 Q. You've worked at both papers, the Sun and the News of
14 the World. Are there any differences in the culture at
15 those two papers or not, in your view?
16 A. In so much as one is a daily paper, so the pace of the
17 paper is very different, the atmosphere is different to
18 a degree, certainly on certain days of the week. If you
19 try to find a comparison between the News of the World
20 mood, if you like, and the mood of the Sun, it's on
21 a Saturday obviously because that's the day you're
22 producing the newspaper.
23 Q. Moving to, please, your dealings with Mr Rupert Murdoch
24 as editor, so we're looking now at the period 2003-2007.
25 About how often would you speak with him, do you think?
5
1 A. I can't put a number on it, but he would call usually on
2 a Saturday night. Sometimes it would be, you know,
3 maybe a couple of times in a month, sometimes you might
4 go a couple of months without hearing from him. So it
5 was -- I think I would describe that as irregular, and
6 almost always -- in fact, I think always a sort of
7 Saturday night phone call. Aside from the, you know,
8 occasional News International meetings when he was in
9 London or when I would go to New York along with all the
10 other editors for the sort of budget discussions.
11 Q. In terms of the content of the paper, what in particular
12 was he interested in?
13 A. In terms of the specific content, I don't remember any
14 conversations with him initially about a particular part
15 of the paper. We did talk about the sports pages. The
16 company had made a big investment in expanding the size
17 of the sports pages, sports coverage in the News of the
18 World, and that was a fundamentally important part of
19 the sort of commercial mix of the paper, so we -- I'm
20 sure we discussed that. And we discussed politics
21 generally and he would give me his view on whatever was
22 sort of in the news at the time, maybe.
23 Q. We know Mr Murdoch was interested in football because he
24 tried to buy Manchester United, we know that didn't
25 succeed, but wasn't he interested in things such as
6
1 scoops and front pages?
2 A. In those conversations I might tell him, if we had
3 a good story, what we were planning to run that night,
4 but not always, by any measure.
5 Q. Wasn't he interested in stories which might impact on
6 the commercial success, the circulation figures of the
7 newspaper?
8 A. Well, insofar as -- I mean, sport is a good example. In
9 terms of driving sale of the News of the World, the
10 sport was crucial. And it also had a massive impact on
11 the sort of physical production of the paper, so that
12 was a -- I certainly remember having that conversation.
13 News International invested in some very expensive
14 presses during my time as editor, and I had real
15 concerns that those presses, although very successful in
16 some regards, would impact on the production of the
17 paper, particularly the sports coverage. You wouldn't
18 get the right team's coverage into the right area, for
19 example. I certainly remember discussing that.
20 Q. You're bringing the conversation around to quite neutral
21 topics such at sport. Did he ask you questions directly
22 about circulation figures?
23 A. He may well have done, yes.
24 Q. And during these sporadic telephone calls, him usually
25 phoning from New York, presumably, on a Saturday, did he
7
1 tend to ask you, "How's the circulation going"?
2 A. Not always, no.
3 Q. But often?
4 A. I certainly remember occasions when he did, but it
5 wasn't the -- I wouldn't want to characterise it as the
6 main purpose of the call, because quite often he
7 wouldn't even mention it.
8 Q. But both you and he were aware of the sort of factors
9 which might impinge on the circulation figures of the
10 paper; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. My job as editor was to -- was absolutely to
12 produce a successful newspaper.
13 Q. When you said you discussed the political issues of the
14 day, were these quite general discussions about topical
15 issues such as Europe, the European referendum or
16 whatever it might be?
17 A. Yes. I mean, Europe wasn't as big an issue for the News
18 of the World as perhaps it was for a daily paper like
19 the Sun, but yes.
20 Q. Did you discuss the politicians of the day and how well
21 they were doing in your eyes?
22 A. On occasions, yes.
23 Q. Did you have a sense that he wanted to find out how
24 political opinion in this country was moving?
25 A. I don't recall a sort of specific conversation in that
8
1 way.
2 Q. But in general, Mr Coulson, I'm not asking you to
3 identify a moment or a particular conversation, but in
4 general did you have any sense of that?
5 A. I might well in the course of a conversation offer
6 a view, normally related to a particular issue rather
7 than the sort of longer term picture.
8 Q. During this period, 2003, 2007, were you particularly
9 interested in politics or not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And although your paper may not have adopted this
12 position, your own personal position throughout has been
13 pro-Conservative, hasn't it?
14 A. Well, we supported Labour under my editorship at News of
15 the World.
16 Q. I'm talking about your own personal --
17 A. How I voted?
18 Q. I'm not seeking to be so personal as to ask you how did
19 you vote, I just want to seek your general perspective
20 on things. Generally speaking Conservative?
21 A. Sure, one tends to vote in line with your personal
22 feelings, but yes, I think that's fair to say.
23 Q. Do you feel it was part of your job as editor, perhaps
24 in any event, to assess the political mood of the
25 country and in particular how the country was likely to
9
1 vote in the next General Election?
2 A. I think my job as editor was to -- as best I could, to
3 establish where the News of the World readership was in
4 terms of politics and certain issues.
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: To lead or to follow?
6 A. No, I think to try and reflect, sir.
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So in that sense, to follow?
8 A. Yes, I think there's more follow than lead, I would say.
9 There were some issues that as an editor you would want
10 to champion, and therefore I think probably aim to lead
11 opinion, but I think generally speaking, a successful
12 newspaper is one that's in tune with its readership.
13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So there are some things you can't
14 get them to do, but there are some things you could get
15 them to do if the cause is right?
16 A. Them as in politicians or the readers?
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, them as in readers.
18 A. No, I don't think you can get readers to do anything
19 other than try to buy the paper.
20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right, all right. You have to
21 have an understanding of where they are so that when you
22 decide that you do want to promote a particular cause to
23 go into leadership mode that it is sufficiently in tune
24 with where you know they are that it doesn't cause you
25 trouble.
10
1 A. Yes, you want the two to be aligned as much as you
2 possibly can.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's what I was trying to get at.
4 MR JAY: Of course, the exercise tends to be rather
5 unscientific because you have a very large readership,
6 over 3 million people are buying the paper, and
7 obviously a whole range of opinion within that
8 readership; is that right?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Do you take opinion polls, even on a rudimentary basis,
11 of what your readership was likely to vote?
12 A. Pretty rudimentary. There was some market research that
13 I'd occasionally get access to.
14 Q. Would you describe your relationship with Mr Murdoch as
15 being warm or something different?
16 A. I was an employee and we had a -- I thoroughly enjoyed
17 my time working for him, and in the sort of interactions
18 I had with him, yes, he was warm and supportive.
19 Q. So warm towards you and vice versa, is that it?
20 A. I wasn't particularly close to him in that regard,
21 I wouldn't want to overstate it. He was supportive to
22 me as an editor and I enjoyed working in his company.
23 Q. There are rumours that you turned down the editorship of
24 the Daily Mirror upon the resignation of Mr Morgan. If
25 you did, that might reflect on your loyalty to
11
1 Mr Murdoch, but did you?
2 A. There were conversations, yes, towards the possibility
3 of me becoming the editor of the Daily Mirror, and
4 I chose not to do so.
5 Q. Okay. The one General Election which came in your
6 watch, as it were, was the 2005 election.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You say in paragraph 40 of your statement:
9 "In the end [you] decided to continue the paper's
10 support of Tony Blair."
11 Why "in the end"?
12 A. Well, it was a sort of long process, really. I had
13 a range of meetings in the sort of lead-up to the
14 election, a conference, an outsider conference and
15 I over time, together with my team at the News of the
16 World, decided in the end that we would continue to
17 support Tony Blair.
18 Q. Did you believe that he would probably win that
19 election?
20 A. Well, it wasn't the key factor in the decision. The key
21 factor in the decision was -- as I touched on earlier,
22 was I felt that News of the World's readers' best
23 interests would be best served by Tony Blair. But, you
24 know, if you read the leader at the time, I think I --
25 I think it was -- I don't think it was wildly
12
1 enthusiastic. But I think on balance we felt that that
2 was the best way to go.
3 Q. You say you reflected the mood of the country I suppose;
4 is that right?
5 A. Possibly, yes.
6 Q. Did you take advice about who might win that election?
7 A. No.
8 Q. From your political editor, for example?
9 A. Oh, sorry. In terms of advice, I mean we had a -- some
10 pretty detailed conversations about it, and that would
11 certainly have involved the political staff. I was keen
12 also to involve members of staff who didn't work in
13 politics, who didn't understand Westminster, who weren't
14 immersed in that world, people who worked in different
15 departments on the magazine and in features, and what
16 have you.
17 Q. Did you have discussions with Rebekah Wade about it?
18 A. No, I don't think so. In terms of the editorship of the
19 Sun, and the editorship of the News of the World, they
20 are separate -- or they were separate papers, and there
21 was a sort of clear line drawn between the two. There's
22 a rivalry, actually, or there was a rivalry between the
23 two. And so I wouldn't have had a -- I certainly don't
24 remember any conversations with Rebekah about that
25 issue.
13
1 Q. So the Sun's endorsement of the Labour Party would have
2 been a surprise to you then, would it?
3 A. I don't know if it was a surprise. I certainly didn't
4 play any part in that decision-making.
5 Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr Rupert Murdoch
6 about it?
7 A. About the Sun's endorsement?
8 Q. No, the News of the World's endorsement.
9 A. I don't believe I did, no. I may have had
10 a conversation with him after the event, possibly.
11 I don't know. I don't remember, anyway.
12 Q. Wouldn't you, though, have wanted to find out whether
13 what you were doing was contrary to his viewpoint?
14 A. No. I didn't have a conversation with him, I don't
15 remember one, I don't think it happened, about the 2005
16 election. I followed my own path with it and I don't
17 feel, you know, sitting here now, that I was pushed or
18 encouraged or certainly told to go a certain way.
19 I remember the process quite well and I was determined
20 that we would spend a reasonable amount of time with
21 politicians from both parties and then we would make up
22 our own minds.
23 Q. I move forward to October 2005, Conservative Party
24 conference. There were five candidates standing for the
25 leadership. You'll recall that, Mr Coulson?
14
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You tell us in paragraph 33 of your statement that you
3 met Mr David Cameron there at a dinner hosted by
4 Mr Les Hinton, do you recall?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was he soon your preferred candidate for the leadership?
7 A. Certainly not at that stage. I've taken the time to
8 look back at some News of the World editions of around
9 that period, and I don't think that the News of the
10 World ever explicitly supported Mr Cameron in the
11 leadership. I don't think we explicitly supported
12 anyone. But we did employ at that stage William Hague
13 as a columnist and I think that Mr Hague expressed
14 a preference, before of course he then went to go and
15 work with him.
16 Q. From your own personal perspective, was he your
17 preferred candidate for the leadership?
18 A. Not that I recall. I don't think I formed a -- at that
19 stage a clear view. I found a leader, actually, as
20 I was looking at this issue. I found a leader from the
21 News of the World where we suggested that it was his to
22 win, and I think -- I haven't found anything to the
23 contrary -- I think that's as far as it went, so there
24 was a -- we certainly weren't against him, put it that
25 way.
15
1 Q. Between December 2005 and January 2007, was the News of
2 the World slowly moving towards supporting the
3 Conservative Party at the next election?
4 A. I don't think so. I mean, it was the News of the World
5 under my editorship that came up with the headline "Hug
6 a hoodie", and I don't think that was especially helpful
7 to Mr Cameron, so I don't think that that's the case.
8 Q. In paragraph 34 of your statement you talk about the
9 agenda for your meetings with politicians at around this
10 time. You make it clear:
11 "At no point in any of these conversations was the
12 potential support of the News of the World ... discussed
13 and nor indeed were any commercial issues."
14 And by "commercial issues" you presumably mean the
15 direct business or commercial interests of News
16 International, do you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you discuss issues which would nonetheless impact on
19 the interests of the press more generally such as
20 conditional fee agreements, appropriate sentencing for
21 breaches of the Data Protection Act, those sort of
22 issues?
23 A. I don't -- I don't recall doing so, no.
24 Q. Human Rights Act, was that a frequent topic of
25 conversation?
16
1 A. That may have come up in conversation. Yes, that's
2 possible.
3 Q. In the context of the Human Rights Act, were you in the
4 camp that freedom of the press was to take precedence
5 over privacy of individuals?
6 A. I'm certainly a believer in the freedom of the press,
7 yes.
8 Q. So if there were conversations about the Human Rights
9 Act, it's clear what your position would have been
10 during the course of those conversations, isn't it?
11 A. Well, I'm certainly a believer in the freedom of the
12 press. That much is true.
13 Q. In this same period, December 2005 to January 2007, as
14 regards your dealings with politicians, would it be fair
15 to say that it was a clear subtext of your dealings with
16 senior politicians of all three main parties that they
17 were keen to know whether the News of the World would
18 support them?
19 A. No. The sort of explicit issue of "will you support us"
20 has never been asked -- was never asked of me during
21 that time directly, no.
22 Q. Clear subtext. That's the way I put it, Mr Coulson.
23 A. Well, I think that they -- politicians from both sides
24 in those conversations were seeking to get their message
25 across and hope that it would be received by us in
17
1 a positive light.
2 Q. Usually in human interactions one knows what the other
3 person wants out of one. It's not rocket science, is
4 it? This was the clear subtext of your conversations
5 with politicians, wasn't it?
6 A. The agenda for me was to work out in the course of
7 a conversation whether or not the party or the -- the
8 politician or the party he represented would best serve
9 the interests of News of the World readers, and I had
10 some ideas as to what kind of constituted that.
11 Q. Do you think the politicians you spoke to knew that you
12 were a Conservative Party supporter?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. You refer to a conversation with Mr Brown in 2006,
15 Labour Conference Manchester, do you see that?
16 Paragraph 36.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If it was at the Labour Conference in Manchester that
19 year, we knew, because it was announced, that Mr Blair
20 would be leaving within the year and therefore in all
21 probability Mr Brown would be the next Prime Minister.
22 Are you with me?
23 A. I think that was a given, yes.
24 Q. You say:
25 "I remember that meeting well because Mr Brown told
18
1 me he had it on very good authority that Rupert Murdoch
2 would appoint me as editor of the Sun when Rebekah was
3 promoted."
4 Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So he was effectively telling you that it was already
7 Rupert Murdoch's decision, one, that Rebekah Wade would
8 be promoted and that, two, you would be in line to be
9 the next editor of the Sun?
10 A. That's what he was saying, yes.
11 Q. Why did you take that with a large pinch of salt, as you
12 say?
13 A. Because I didn't frankly believe that Rupert Murdoch
14 would have had that conversation with him.
15 Q. But why not? He was close to Mr Brown, wasn't he?
16 A. My understanding of how News International worked in
17 terms of appointments of editors is that he would not
18 have involved a conversation either at that stage, by
19 the way, because it was some time after that that
20 Rebekah was promoted, quite some time after that, and
21 also I just didn't believe it. I just got -- I came
22 away believing that this was an attempt by Mr Brown to
23 sort of impress on me his closeness to Mr Murdoch. And
24 quite frankly, I didn't believe it.
25 Q. It was certainly an attempt by Mr Brown to impress on
19
1 you his proximity to Mr Murdoch, that's clear, and that
2 was the strong message he was transmitting to you, but
3 his two predictions were right, though, weren't they?
4 A. His two predictions were right? Well, I didn't become
5 the editor of the Sun. I would say as predictions go it
6 was pretty hopeless.
7 Q. If certain events hadn't intruded then you might have
8 become, but Rebekah was promoted, wasn't she?
9 A. She was some time later, yes.
10 Q. You refer then to Mr Osborne. You say you met with him
11 in 2005 -- this is paragraph 37.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you get on well with Mr Osborne?
14 A. I got on fine. We didn't spend a lot of tim together,
15 but I remember having a cup of coffee with him at that
16 conference.
17 Q. You deal in paragraph 38 specifically with a story which
18 was published in the News of the World in October 2005.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You were asked to deal with that in your witness
21 statement and you have done. Can we just understand the
22 context. Was the Sunday Mirror also going to publish
23 the same story?
24 A. Yes. I'm not sure at what point I was aware the
25 Sunday Mirror were going to publish the story. They did
20
1 publish the same story, though, yes.
2 Q. On the same Sunday?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you could anticipate that the Sunday Mirror's
5 position would be quite hostile to Mr Osborne, couldn't
6 you?
7 A. Well, I didn't know that -- I'm not sure that I knew
8 they were publishing it, so I hadn't really given that
9 any thought, but I think it's a given that the
10 Sunday Mirror is a more left-leaning newspaper and so as
11 a consequence may have been more critical of Mr Osborne.
12 Q. But you knew that the Sunday Mirror had the story, you
13 knew logically they could only publish it on a Sunday.
14 In the event, they published it on the same Sunday as
15 the News of the World. It was all pointing to the same
16 date, wasn't it?
17 A. I'm not sure that I did know -- at what point I knew
18 that the Sunday Mirror had the story.
19 Q. The story, stripped down to its bare essentials, was
20 capable of being harmful to the interests of Mr Osborne
21 self-evidently, wasn't it?
22 A. It certainly wasn't helpful.
23 Q. Your editorial slant on the story was favourable,
24 though, to Mr Osborne, wasn't it? If you look at what
25 you said, it's under your tab 3, our page 02395. We're
21
1 on now 18 October 2005. The story itself is splashed
2 over three pages and contains all sorts of detail
3 I don't think it's necessary for us to go into now, but
4 of course it's there if anybody want to read it. But
5 you were effectively saying that Mr Osborne should be
6 given another chance, weren't you?
7 A. I think the leader was saying that "Here's the
8 information, here's what he says about it, make up your
9 own minds". I think if I were to try and distill the
10 message of the leader, "Tories' fate is in your hands",
11 that's how I would distill it. But Mr Jay, I would say
12 this: that's the leader column of the News of the World
13 and as much as I would love to say that the leaders that
14 I wrote were the most read part of the News of the
15 World, I think I can safely say that they weren't. The
16 front page, "Top Tory, coke and the hooker" I don't
17 think in any way can be described as career enhancing
18 for George Osbourne and the idea that we somehow or
19 other went easy on him I think is ridiculous when you
20 look at the paper.
21 Q. Did you personally write this editorial?
22 A. I think I would have contributed to it. I don't know if
23 I actually wrote it. Quite often the process is that
24 I would have a conversation with another member of staff
25 and they would write it and then I would edit it or
22
1 offer a view on it. Sometimes I would write them
2 myself.
3 Q. Whether there's any underlying evidential basis to the
4 story is not the purpose of my questions. You do say in
5 about the fifth line of the editorial:
6 "Shadow Chancellor George Osborne was a young man
7 when he found himself caught up in this murky world."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then you say a bit later on:
11 "Last week we said that the Tory leadership is
12 Cameron's for the taking. Nothing published since then
13 has made us change our mind."
14 And of course Mr Osborne was going to be
15 Mr Cameron's number two effectively as Shadow Chancellor
16 and then, in the events which happened, Chancellor of
17 the Exchequer, wasn't he?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So this was putting a favourable gloss on quite a murky
20 world, wasn't it?
21 A. It was a view. It was the paper's view. And
22 Mr Osborne -- again, I am not -- I agree, I don't think
23 we should necessarily go into the detail of the story,
24 but Mr Osborne was not admitting to anything. These
25 were the claims of someone who was a friend of a friend,
23
1 as I seem to remember, so that was the view formed.
2 I think probably as a result of a discussion with my
3 team, that's where we ended up.
4 And I think it also -- I've taken the time to look
5 at the Sunday Mirror's leader. Their leader does not
6 call for Mr Osborne to be fired. It stops well short of
7 that. I think it's fair to say that it's a bit more
8 critical, as you'd possibly expect, but it certainly
9 doesn't suggest that it would be the end of his
10 political career by any measure.
11 Q. Wasn't this a classic example, let me put it in these
12 terms. The News of the World couldn't resist the scoop.
13 It was, after all, in the eyes of the News of the World
14 a great story, so we're going to publish it for what it
15 is, but then let's gloss it in the editorial and put
16 perhaps the most favourable interpretation that could be
17 put on the story. Is that fair or not?
18 A. I don't think it is and I just think if you're looking
19 for an example of the News of the World being helpful to
20 the Conservative Party, this is, with the greatest of
21 respect, a pretty poor example. What matters here is
22 what's on the front page and what the headline is on
23 pages 4 and 5.
24 As I look at this front page now, I'm reminded that,
25 had we not had a DVD promotion that day, this story
24
1 would have been twice the size, and that's -- you know,
2 that's all I can say. Compare that to the leader
3 column. I just don't think that holds.
4 Q. Would you have buried the story altogether if you knew
5 the Mirror were not going to splash it?
6 A. No. Certainly not.
7 Q. Yes, the free DVD was all about Little Britain. That
8 takes up half the front page. We can see the other
9 half. It's a standard News of the World splash, isn't
10 it?
11 A. I don't think it's standard, necessarily, but it was
12 a News of the World story. It was also a Sunday Mirror
13 story and I think I'm right in saying that other
14 newspapers followed it subsequently. It still gets
15 a reasonable amount of coverage in the Guardian.
16 Q. I think I've taken that point as far as it can go,
17 Mr Coulson. January 2007, you resign. Were there any
18 discussions with Mr Hinton before your resignation?
19 A. Well, there was the conversation about my resignation,
20 yes.
21 Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr Murdoch before you
22 resigned or not?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You've included your severance agreement, which is under
25 AEC1, described as a compromise agreement. The
25
1 narrative starts at page 02379. We can see it's dated
2 26 February 2007. Do you see that, Mr Coulson?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Which I think is exactly a month after you resigned; is
5 that right?
6 A. Yes. I resigned two weeks before I actually left. So
7 I resigned -- that conversation that I mentioned with
8 Les Hinton took place two weeks before I actually left
9 the building.
10 Q. So you weren't resigning on the basis that you would
11 walk away from any contractual benefits you might
12 attain, you were resigning on the basis that you would
13 leave consensually, is that fair?
14 A. Yes. Well, it was my decision. There wasn't a sort of
15 negotiation or a discussion about whether or not I would
16 or I wouldn't. I went to see Les Hinton and I was very
17 clear that I was going to resign, and then I did so.
18 Q. Under clause 3, 02380, you received both payment in lieu
19 of the employer's contractual notice period and
20 compensation for termination of employment, so there are
21 two separate tranches, aren't there?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The last tranche is going to be paid in November 2007.
24 From your own experience, was that standard practice or
25 not in severance agreements of this sort?
26
1 A. Well, I'd never resigned before, so I don't know whether
2 or not this is the format that was followed, personally.
3 I'm told that the sort of separating out of payments in
4 this way is a reasonably standard practice, but I'm not
5 an employment lawyer so I can't be certain of that.
6 Q. There's reference in the agreement, if you look at
7 clause 4.2, 02381, it's quite a complicated clause but
8 it effectively means that the restricted stock units
9 which were going to vest in you in August 2007 would
10 continue to vest in you notwithstanding your
11 resignation, do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. As at that stage, did you also have stock in News
14 International as opposed to News Corporation?
15 A. I had shares in News International, which I think I sold
16 before I left the company, before I resigned, and there
17 may have been some shares I had around this time that
18 I sold immediately on leaving.
19 Q. Can I be clear, apart from the restricted stock units
20 which were going to vest in you in August 2007, were
21 there any other shares or stocks either in News
22 International or in News Corporation, say, by May 2007,
23 in your possession?
24 A. I don't believe so, no. No.
25 Q. In clause 4.6 there is the provision that the employer
27
1 will pay any reasonable professional costs and expenses
2 properly incurred by you in relation to certain matters.
3 That clause, I think, is subject to litigation in the
4 Court of Appeal, isn't it?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. The last clause, under clause 7.1(b), this is 02382, you
7 agreed that in consideration of a small payment you
8 will:
9 "... not make or cause to be made, directly or
10 indirectly, any statement or comment to any person
11 (including, without limitation, to the press or any
12 other media) which might injure, damage or impugn the
13 good name, reputation or character of the employer, any
14 of its newspapers and/or any associated company
15 (including any of its or their directors, officers,
16 employees or shareholders)."
17 Has that provision in any way impacted on the
18 evidence you're giving us?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know what it means?
21 A. I think so, yes.
22 Q. Okay. When you resigned as editor of the News of the
23 World, did you receive any commiserations from Mr Blair?
24 A. Yes, sometimes later, yes.
25 Q. Mr Brown?
28
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mr Cameron?
3 A. I don't remember doing so, no.
4 Q. You were approached by Mr Osborne in March 2007. This
5 is paragraph 29 of your statement. Our page 02412.
6 Paragraph 29, Mr Coulson.
7 A. Thank you.
8 Q. You met for a drink and he asked you in effect whether
9 you would be interested in joining the team. It goes
10 without saying that Mr Osborne knew that your natural
11 sympathies were with the Conservative Party?
12 A. I don't know, you'd have to ask Mr Osborne what his
13 thinking was, but certainly he approached me with the
14 view that I could be a positive asset rather than
15 a negative one, I'm sure.
16 Q. I think it's pretty obvious that he did know, otherwise
17 he would have gone to someone else, wouldn't he?
18 A. Well, in any event, he was correct.
19 Q. At that stage did you know if anybody else was in the
20 running for the job?
21 A. No.
22 Q. At any later stage, did you know whether anybody else
23 was in the running for the job?
24 A. No. At a later stage, after I'd started working for the
25 Conservatives, I was told that there had been another
29
1 journalist, a BBC journalist, who had been -- had had
2 a discussion, I think with Mr Cameron, quite some time
3 before I was considered for the job, and for whatever
4 reason that didn't work out.
5 Q. So this is the journalist whose name has come up in this
6 context, isn't it?
7 A. Guto Harri, yes.
8 Q. What did Mr Osborne say that you could offer the
9 Conservative Party?
10 A. The conversation really was more around my views of how
11 the party should organise its communications in advance
12 of a General Election. Of course, we had no idea at
13 that stage when the election might be. And so I gave my
14 views.
15 Q. What did you tell him?
16 A. I told him that my view of communications was that it
17 needed to be first and foremost professional, that we
18 needed to have good relationships with as many media
19 representatives as possible right across the spectrum,
20 and I also told him in that conversation and again later
21 in a conversation with Mr Cameron that my firm belief
22 was that television would play a crucial part in any
23 General Election campaign. My view was more so than it
24 had done previously.
25 Q. You had no political experience, did you?
30
1 A. No.
2 Q. You'd never been a political editor of any newspaper,
3 had you?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Didn't Mr Osborne at least indicate what he thought or
6 the Conservative Party thought you might bring to the
7 table?
8 A. I think I was the editor of a national newspaper. I'd
9 been in newspapers for a long time. I had managed
10 a team, motivated a team. I'd kind of, you know, had
11 a hand in running a business, I suppose, in terms of the
12 commercial aspects of the newspaper. As I say, not
13 forensically, that was the managing editor's job, but
14 I had oversight of it. So I'm sure those were
15 considerations.
16 Q. But all those considerations would demonstrate, as I'm
17 sure was the case, that you were a good editor, but
18 that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking
19 about you being Director of Communications for the
20 Conservative Party in Opposition. What qualities did he
21 say, if any, you might bring to the table?
22 A. I don't know. I don't want to be obstructive, but
23 I think that's going to be a question for Mr Osborne.
24 I didn't -- the conversation was not, "Andy, here's why
25 we think you're going to be great". I don't recall it
31
1 that way at all. The conversation was very much, "What
2 do you think we need to do to get elected?"
3 Q. It was in part an interview, but at what point did he
4 say, "Are you interested in this job"?
5 A. In truth it didn't feel like an interview at all.
6 I think it was clear from the off that they were
7 interested in hiring me.
8 Q. Exactly.
9 A. And he said that they were going to make changes to the
10 professional set-up and that -- and that he would like
11 me to meet Mr Cameron.
12 Q. So he'd already identified you as the man the
13 Conservative Party wanted, hadn't he?
14 A. Well, I don't think he would have called me unless I was
15 at the very least on the list. And I had no idea at
16 that point --
17 Q. This might have been an interview, it might have been
18 "Let's see what Mr Coulson's like, let's ask him a few
19 questions and we'll go away and think about it". It
20 doesn't appear to have been like that though,
21 Mr Coulson, does it?
22 A. We'd met a couple of times previously. Look I don't
23 know what was in George Osborne's mind --
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Let's forget anything about
25 Mr Osborne. Let's think about you. You're a newspaper
32
1 man. You're used to selling ideas, selling stories.
2 Did you not see this conversation as selling yourself?
3 That's what most people do in interviews, isn't it?
4 A. Well, I wasn't going into it as an interview. Actually
5 I went into it, sir, with a degree of reluctance. So
6 I wasn't really thinking about politics until I got the
7 call.
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Once you met him and it was
9 abundantly clear what they were talking about, how did
10 you put your view across to them that actually it might
11 be a good idea for them to offer you a job? Or maybe
12 you didn't?
13 A. In the way I that I described, I gave an outline in the
14 conversation with Mr Osborne as to what I felt from my
15 experience in the media the party needed to do to give
16 itself the best chance to be elected. That conversation
17 touched on the print media, of course, because that's my
18 experience, but I remember very well saying to
19 Mr Osborne and later to Mr Cameron that television is
20 going to be hugely important. By the way, hardly
21 a stunning observation, but one that I was very clear in
22 my mind and I was already thinking at that stage about
23 the possibility of TV debates as well.
24 MR JAY: Did it not occur to you, you say you became more
25 intrigued as the conversation went on, and presumably
33
1 you went away to think about it. Did it not occur to
2 you: "Why are they asking me to do this job"?
3 A. Possibly it did. But once that first conversation was
4 under way, Mr Osborne said, "I want you to meet with --
5 talk to and meet with Mr Cameron", and then the process
6 sort of went on from there.
7 Q. But you're entering terrain which is rather different
8 from 17, 18 years of career. Career in journalism, you
9 end up as an editor of the largest circulation newspaper
10 in the United Kingdom, in the English-speaking world,
11 and now you're asked to do something completely
12 different. Doesn't it pass through your mind: "Why are
13 they asking me to do this"?
14 A. Well, something completely different. I'd been the
15 editor of a national newspaper for a number of years.
16 That involved politics, as we've discussed. And beyond
17 the sort of stories that you've alighted on, Mr Jay.
18 You know, I was dealing in issues. I ran campaigns.
19 I was -- I hope, at least aimed to be -- in tune with
20 the readership of a newspaper that is vast -- or was
21 vast. And I think those things, I'm sure, were
22 attractive.
23 If I can add, the route from journalism to politics,
24 you know, I was hardly the pioneer. There had been
25 several people through the history of politics who had
34
1 gone from newspapers into politics.
2 Q. Yes. Mr Alastair Campbell, of course, had been
3 political editor of the Daily Mirror, I believe, and
4 then became Director of Communications. That may or may
5 not have been a more natural pathway, but you didn't
6 enjoy that previous sort of career, did you?
7 A. No, but one might argue that an editor of a newspaper
8 going into politics is as appropriate.
9 Q. What about your connections to News International? Did
10 Mr Osborne mention those?
11 A. I don't remember that being a specific conversation at
12 that point, no.
13 Q. Thinking about it --
14 A. There may well have been a conversation about, you know,
15 the fact that I worked on the News of the World and
16 maybe we discussed some individuals in that regard.
17 I don't really remember, but I'm sure that the
18 conversation would have touched on my previous employers
19 in some way.
20 Q. It was the elephant in the room, wasn't it?
21 A. Not really, no.
22 Q. You were close to Mrs Brooks -- or Ms Wade as she then
23 was, weren't you?
24 A. We were friends, yes.
25 Q. You had, you've told us, a warm relationship with
35
1 Mr Murdoch.
2 A. As an editor and employer, yes. It didn't go beyond
3 that.
4 Q. Mr Osborne, the Conservative Party knew all of that,
5 didn't they?
6 A. I'm sure, yes.
7 Q. You also, if I can put it sort of empathetically,
8 understood the viewpoint of the sort of floating voter
9 which would be particularly interesting to the
10 Conservative Party?
11 A. That may have been a consideration, yes.
12 Q. But all these considerations were ones which certainly
13 passed through your mind, didn't they?
14 A. They may well have done and they may well have done for
15 Mr Osborne.
16 Q. They did, didn't they?
17 A. I can't tell you what Mr Osborne was thinking. In terms
18 of my thinking, I, as I say, went into the meeting,
19 I didn't see it as an interview. It was a meeting with
20 George Osborne, and my initial reaction to it was
21 frankly slightly reluctant but I was intrigued and I had
22 further conversations and then over time decided that,
23 yes, this is something that I wanted to do.
24 Q. Okay. There were further conversations, as paragraph 30
25 of your statement makes clear. I just want to ask you
36
1 this simple question: did either Francis Maude or
2 Ed Llewellyn raise the issue of the Goodman/Mulcaire
3 case with you?
4 A. I don't remember but it's possible.
5 Q. You say at the end of paragraph 30 that towards the end
6 of May 2007 they, that's the conversations, were
7 restarted and after further conversations with
8 Mr Cameron and others you were offered the job of
9 Director of Communications and Planning.
10 Can I just understand the timing in the context of
11 the last question I asked you? Were you offered the job
12 after the conversation which might have taken place with
13 Mr Maude and Mr Llewellyn? Can you remember that?
14 A. I think the conversation with Mr Cameron in May was --
15 I considered in my mind to be the confirmation that
16 I was taking the job. It may well be in those
17 conversations leading to that that the process of my
18 joining -- you know, perhaps even an offer letter,
19 I can't remember, or the terms were discussed in
20 advance, but in my mind, that conversation when I was on
21 holiday in Cornwall was the sort of confirmation.
22 Q. You say in paragraph 31 of your statement -- this is the
23 conversation you've just been referring to:
24 "He [that's Mr Cameron] also asked me about the
25 Clive Goodman case."
37
1 Can you remember the gist of your answer?
2 A. I was able to repeat what I'd said publicly, that I knew
3 nothing about the Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire case
4 in terms of what they did.
5 Q. Did the formal job offer follow that conversation on the
6 mobile phone with you in Cornwall and Mr Cameron
7 wherever he was?
8 A. In terms of paperwork, in terms of the offer letter and
9 when it was a contract signed, I can't remember the
10 exact timing. I think it was afterwards.
11 Q. Can I ask you about the timing of your conversations
12 with Rebekah Wade as she was, paragraph 32 of your
13 statement.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You say:
16 "At some point I told her and other close friends
17 [you were] in discussion with the Conservatives."
18 Might that have been in May or earlier?
19 A. I can't remember the timing but I know I told my --
20 a close group of friends, small number of friends, and
21 I'm sure that Rebekah was among them, that I was going
22 to take this job.
23 Q. What was her reaction?
24 A. I think she would have congratulated me.
25 Q. Was she pleased or not, do you think?
38
1 A. I think so, yes. I certainly don't remember her saying
2 otherwise.
3 Q. Do you know whether she had any influence or otherwise
4 over you getting the job?
5 A. Not that I can recall, no.
6 Q. Were there any conversations with her at any stage which
7 you had with her which might have indicated that she had
8 an influence over you getting the job?
9 A. No, not that I can remember.
10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I just go back? You say that
11 you met Mr Cameron and there isn't a trap or a trick in
12 the question I'm asking, I'm just keen to understand it.
13 You didn't appreciate when you started to chat to
14 Mr Osborne that this was an interview, but by the time
15 you were going to meet Mr Cameron, you knew exactly what
16 was happening?
17 A. Yes.
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm going back to the question
19 I asked before: did you formulate in your mind and did
20 you have to explain what it was that you were bringing
21 to, if you like, the party? What skills you actually
22 could bring to the party? Did you sell yourself to him?
23 A. I'm sure I tried to talk in the most favourable light
24 for myself, without sitting there and being an appalling
25 bighead. I'm sure I tried to -- in the conversation
39
1 I would have tried to impress on him that I could do
2 a good job, yes.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What I'm keen to understand is what
4 it was that you were able to point to in your history
5 makeup, and I understand the problem about boasting,
6 being bigheaded, I understand that, but to demonstrate
7 that actually this could be a sensible move for them?
8 What was it?
9 A. Well, I think it's my broad experience and my experience
10 went across from 1998 when I stopped working as
11 a showbusiness reporter, I was involved across the paper
12 in all manner of -- both the Sun and the News of the
13 World, and indeed I'd worked for nine months on the
14 Internet launching a whole series of websites. So I may
15 well have mentioned that, and I think through the
16 conversation they may well have been -- I wasn't
17 necessarily aware of it, but they may well have been
18 trying to tease out whether or not I was the right man
19 for the job and that conversation may well have gone to
20 my background and where I grew up and those kind of
21 things. That's more than possible.
22 MR JAY: Paragraph 42 now, please, Mr Coulson. You say:
23 "Whilst my News International background may have
24 been considered useful by the Conservatives when
25 considering me for the post, it was not specifically
40
1 discussed as being an advantage."
2 So that's your best recollection, is it?
3 A. It is my best recollection, and as I think I've put in
4 my statement, I do remember explaining that my News
5 International background -- this was not suggested by
6 either Mr Osborne or Mr Cameron, this was introduced
7 into the conversation by me -- that my News
8 International background should not therefore be seen as
9 some sort of, you know, a guarantee of the support of
10 either of those papers.
11 Q. Plainly it couldn't be a guarantee, but it might be
12 a factor, mightn't it?
13 A. Well, my experience might help in terms of connecting
14 with News of the World readers and connecting with Sun
15 readers, yes.
16 Q. And also your personal connections, they would help,
17 wouldn't they?
18 A. Well, they wouldn't hurt, but I don't take the view
19 that -- and I certainly didn't ever express the view
20 that they would, as I say, guarantee any kind of
21 support.
22 Q. I'm not talking about you expressing a view, nor am
23 I talking about guarantee. What I'm saying is that your
24 personal connections would help, wouldn't they?
25 A. They would, and my personal connections went well beyond
41
1 News International.
2 Q. Was it your assessment that at about this time
3 Mrs Brooks was becoming a very influential figure?
4 A. I would say she was pretty influential before that.
5 Q. Okay. An even more influential figure?
6 A. Quite possibly. I don't know where she was in terms of
7 her career precisely at that moment.
8 Q. She was still editor of the Sun, wasn't she?
9 A. Still editor of the Sun.
10 Q. Her star was in the ascendant, wasn't it?
11 A. I wasn't there any more, but I think that's fair to say,
12 yes.
13 Q. Politicians were very keen to get close to her, weren't
14 they?
15 A. I think that is fair to say, that they wanted to get
16 their message across to the Sun, I'm sure. Politicians
17 from all parties.
18 Q. But in order --
19 A. The two main parties.
20 Q. In order to get your message across to the Sun, the best
21 lightning rod was Mrs Brooks, wasn't she?
22 A. I think if you're a politician, you have the opportunity
23 to talk to an editor, you will take it and you'll
24 attempt to sell yourself and your party in the best
25 possible light.
42
1 Q. She of course was then and no doubt still is a very
2 powerful personality. Is that your assessment?
3 A. She's a strong personality.
4 Q. Very powerful personality?
5 A. I think I'd say strong personality. I don't know about
6 power.
7 Q. Vis-a-vis the News of the World, you explained to
8 Mr Cameron -- I'm sure he understood this anyway -- that
9 you wouldn't get an easy ride from that paper because
10 Mr Myler, the then editor, was more sympathetic to the
11 Labour Party, is that the gist of it?
12 A. Yes. I don't want to overstate this, but I never worked
13 with Mr Myler so I couldn't say with any degree of
14 certainty, but certainly from what I knew of him, and
15 I knew him sort of briefly, he worked for another
16 Rupert Murdoch paper in New York and we would see each
17 other occasionally at conferences, but his background
18 was with Mirror Group and my understanding through
19 mutual friends and through conversations with him was
20 that he was more likely to be left-leaning. I don't
21 want to suggest that that would necessarily impact on
22 the decisions he was making, but that was my sense.
23 Q. So in early discussions with Mr Cameron, where you were
24 discussing likely support of different newspapers for
25 the Conservative Party, the message you were getting
43
1 across to him was that the News of the World certainly
2 wasn't in the bag because Mr Myler was not onside, is
3 that fair?
4 A. I'm not sure I used those words, but I think that was
5 the sort of essence, yes.
6 Q. The premise of the conversation was that Mr Cameron was
7 interested to know how the News of the World might go at
8 the next election in terms of the support it offered; is
9 that right?
10 A. Well, with regard to this conversation, as I said
11 earlier, I think this is a conversation that
12 I instigated. I'm not sure that David Cameron ever said
13 to me, "Have we got the News of the World in the bag,
14 Andy?" I think this is a conversation that
15 I introduced.
16 Q. And the reason why you introduced it is that you felt
17 that Mr Cameron might benefit from your insights?
18 Correct?
19 A. No, the conversation went further and we discussed other
20 newspapers as well.
21 Q. Certainly. It's not just the News of the World, it's
22 the Sun, because as you say, also in paragraph 42:
23 "I told David Cameron, in one of our first
24 discussions, that he should not" -- sorry, that's the
25 News of the World.
44
1 "Mr Cameron knew Rebekah Brooks and I were friends,
2 but again I made clear, and he understood, that this did
3 not mean that the Sun would endorse us."
4 So again the premise of the conversation was, or the
5 interest from Mr Cameron perhaps for you was: how would
6 you the Sun go in the next election?
7 A. Yes, but as I say, I started that conversation.
8 Q. The Sun in particular was of interest to Mr Cameron,
9 wasn't it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Why do you think that was?
12 A. Its circulation.
13 Q. Not just circulation. It contains a significant number
14 of so-called floating voters, doesn't it?
15 A. Within its circulation, yes. Sorry.
16 Q. So in terms of the most important newspaper, if you had
17 to identify one, whose support a political party might
18 wish to attain, the Sun would always be top of the tree,
19 wouldn't it?
20 A. If you wanted to look at it in terms of circulation,
21 yes, because it has the biggest circulation, but I took
22 a view that there were a number of other newspapers that
23 we needed to work hard to gain the support of and
24 circulation wasn't -- I didn't -- I didn't look at my
25 working day and analyse it based on circulation. I put
45
1 a lot of effort into trying to secure the support of the
2 Sun. I did exactly same to the Daily Mail. I put a lot
3 of time and work into the Daily Telegraph and other
4 newspapers too.
5 Q. I'm not sure I was suggesting that you would lavish all
6 your efforts on the Sun to the extent you would ignore
7 all the others. All I was suggesting was that the Sun
8 was the most important. Are we in agreement or not?
9 A. In terms of circulation, yes.
10 Q. In terms of influence on the floating voter?
11 A. I don't know. I'm not sure I necessarily buy the theory
12 that a newspaper's endorsement will influence its
13 readers directly in that way.
14 Q. Do you think politicians buy into that theory?
15 A. I think that is a theory that is becoming less and less
16 popular amongst politicians.
17 Q. Yes, but in the times we're talking about, the run-up to
18 the 2010 election, is it a theory do you think the
19 politicians were still buying into?
20 A. I think that we wanted the support of the Sun. We
21 wanted the support of as many newspapers as we possibly
22 could, and we didn't know when the election was going to
23 be, and so work had to be put into that.
24 Can I just make a point that I touched on earlier?
25 Newspapers were not the only focus, by any measure, of
46
1 our communications. Television was fundamentally
2 important and we were clear that television was
3 fundamentally important to us from the off.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's as a mechanism for
5 communication.
6 A. Yes.
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Television was going to be bound to
8 have to be impartial.
9 A. Yes, but --
10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Whereas newspapers don't have that
11 limitation.
12 A. No, sure, and there are -- you know, the conversations
13 that you have with a newspaper are different to the
14 conversations that you'd have with the BBC, for example,
15 but in terms of planning a strategy, you know, and the
16 people that you wanted to try and have good
17 relationships with, the people that you would spend your
18 time talking to, where you would try and explain and
19 give the best possible light to your policies,
20 television was crucial for that. As crucial, I would
21 say, as newspapers, and in fact as we got closer to the
22 General Election I would say even more so.
23 MR JAY: Planning your strategy in relation to the print
24 media -- put the broadcast media to one side -- were
25 there not two key elements to this? First of all, you
47
1 had to do your best to secure the support of the Sun in
2 due course, are we agreed?
3 A. That was certainly an aim.
4 Q. In order to secure the support of the Sun, the best way
5 in, as it were, the best entree, was Rebekah Brooks, are
6 we also agreed?
7 A. Whilst Rebekah was editor of the Sun?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. I wouldn't describe it in that way. I was keen actually
10 that we had good relationships throughout -- as much as
11 we could throughout the paper. Same goes for -- if
12 I can keep adding this -- for other newspapers. It is
13 not -- newspapers don't work that way. You know, you
14 can't rely on a call to an editor to guarantee anything,
15 and nor should you. What you were attempting to do was
16 build a series of relationships where when you had
17 something positive to say you would give yourself the
18 best possible chance of getting the best possible
19 coverage, and so it was actually a range of
20 relationships throughout all the newspapers.
21 Q. Certainly. You would not wish to ignore any particular
22 newspaper, even those you felt were, as it were, lost
23 causes. You even mention the Guardian, don't you, at
24 one point in your evidence?
25 A. That's right. I think the party had very good
48
1 relationships with the Guardian. I think I probably
2 wouldn't include the Daily Mirror, in truth, or the
3 Sunday Mirror. I doesn't put an awful lot of effort
4 into either of those papers, although we met and we
5 talked, actually. But yes, I -- and more importantly
6 David Cameron -- took the view that we had to talk to as
7 many people as possible. The Tories had a -- the party
8 had an electoral mountain to climb, it was of historic
9 proportions. So we wanted to touch as many readerships
10 as we possibly could and get our message across as far
11 and wide as we could.
12 Q. Did you advise Mr Cameron that it was essential that he
13 became as close as he could to Mrs Brooks?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Or did he work that out anyway?
16 A. There was a family connection. She was a constituent.
17 Charlie Brooks is a constituent of his, so they live
18 relatively close to his constituency home, but there
19 was, I think, a fairly long-established family
20 connection, and I think that was the genesis of it.
21 Q. May I ask you about two perceptions. I think we covered
22 one of them, namely whether influential papers have
23 a hand in the outcome of elections and you've given your
24 evidence on that. What about this second perception,
25 that there's an implied trade-off for support. It might
49
1 not be the furnishing of direct commercial favours, it
2 might well be the dissemination of a more favourable
3 climate on issues and policies relevant to the media.
4 Do you think there's any validity in that, at least on
5 the level of perception?
6 A. I don't, really. I think that there's -- in the course
7 of a -- in the course of the election campaign there are
8 issues that a whole range of newspapers would consider
9 to be important to them and where our policies
10 overlapped with those newspapers' campaigns or aims,
11 I would seek to maximise that. But then once in
12 government, you get on with the business of governing
13 and obviously politicians set out to keep their
14 promises, so if you've in the course of those campaigns
15 given certain promises, you do your best to keep them.
16 Of course, we ended up with a Coalition government that
17 made that a more complex process, but --
18 Q. The Prime Minister said in July 2011 words to the effect
19 that "We all got too close to News International". You
20 probably recall that, Mr Coulson, don't you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is that a view he expressed to you before July 2011, in
23 particular before you left, which I think was in January
24 2011?
25 A. No, I don't remember him doing so.
50
1 Q. You said in your statement words the effect you almost
2 had to persuade him to meet with journalists because it
3 was so important, but you think he probably would have
4 preferred to be doing other work or enjoying a night at
5 home with his family. This is paragraph 78. Did he
6 ever express disgruntlement to you that he had to spend
7 so much time with journalists and editors as part and
8 parcel of the job, as it were?
9 A. Frequently.
10 Q. Was it ever in the context not merely is this
11 subtracting from my quality time with my family, but
12 there's a deeper problem here, the perception of getting
13 too close to one newspaper group or perhaps more than
14 one newspaper group? Were there discussions in that
15 sort of frank way?
16 A. Not that I recall, no.
17 Q. It follows then that you must have been surprised when
18 he said publicly in July 2011, "We all got too close to
19 News International"; is that right?
20 A. I don't know if I was surprised. I mean, it came after
21 a chain of events. I don't know what his thinking was
22 behind it. I wasn't there.
23 Q. But ignoring what his thinking was, just asking you what
24 your thinking is or was, do you feel that politicians
25 got too close to News International or not?
51
1 A. I look at it from the perspective of whether or not
2 there was improper conversations or a deal done, which
3 I think is all part of this sort of grand conspiracy
4 that sort of sits over this idea, and I never, as I've
5 said clearly in my statement, I never saw
6 a conversation, was party to a conversation that to my
7 mind was inappropriate in that way.
8 Q. Can I suggest, Mr Coulson, try not to look at this too
9 literally. You remember when Mr Murdoch gave his
10 evidence he denied many, many times there were no
11 express deals, but we're not talking about inappropriate
12 conversations necessarily or express trade-offs. We're
13 talking about something a little bit more subtle. Don't
14 you agree that there is at least the valid basis for the
15 perception that this closeness is unhealthy?
16 A. The word "unhealthy" I think sort of implies
17 impropriety, and I'm not sure I agree with that. As
18 I sit here now, I've been out of politics for quite some
19 time, I think things are going to change, I think things
20 have already changed, and I think actually that process
21 may even have begun while I was there. We were the
22 first government ever to be transparent with the
23 meetings that we were having with the media, so maybe
24 that process had already started to kind of enter into
25 people's minds.
52
1 Q. I think the transparency wasn't introduced until July
2 2011, but we'll be hearing evidence about that in due
3 course.
4 A. I'm not sure that's right, Mr Jay, with respect.
5 I think that we made public some special adviser
6 meetings with the media while I was still there.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. So that was in -- that was in 2010.
9 Q. Can I ask you, please, to go back in your statement now
10 to paragraph 45, which is page 02415?
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Jay, at some stage we ought to
12 have a break.
13 MR JAY: Yes, let's break now.
14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Let's do that. We'll give Mr Coulson
15 a few minutes and the shorthand writer a few minutes.
16 Thank you.
17 (3.14 pm)
18 (A short break)
19 (3.24 pm)
20 MR JAY: Mr Coulson, we're on paragraph 45 of your witness
21 statement, the RSUs, which we saw in your compromise
22 agreement.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Going to vest in August 2007, and indeed they did
25 presumably vest on that occasion, didn't they?
53
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is this right, Mr Coulson, that when you took up your
3 job I think in June or July 2007, you had no shares or
4 stocks either in News International or News Corporation,
5 but then in August 2007 these restricted stock units
6 vested in you?
7 A. No, I think there's a first tranche of restricted stock
8 units that were granted to me before I left
9 News International that had already vested and then
10 a second set that were the subject of this compromise
11 agreement then vested in August.
12 Q. Do you know the approximate value of these stocks?
13 A. I didn't throughout any time in opposition or in
14 government, but in preparation for today I've checked
15 and yes, their gross value is around £40,000. What
16 deductions would come from that, I'm not clear.
17 Q. And are these RSUs saleable on the open market or not?
18 A. I think so.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Once they've vested?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR JAY: Why do you think you overlooked them?
22 A. This is by way of explanation, not excuse. My job in
23 opposition was a busy one. My job in government was
24 busier still, and I didn't take the time to pay close
25 attention to my own circumstances in this regard, and
54
1 I should have done.
2 Q. The more important question might be this: did you
3 discuss their existence with anybody in the Conservative
4 Party or then in government?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you discuss their existence with any civil servant?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Paragraph 48 you deal with your vetting status. Do you
9 happen to know what your vetting status was?
10 A. I do now. I didn't then.
11 Q. What is it or was it?
12 A. SC, I believe.
13 Q. And that means?
14 A. I think it means security check.
15 Q. So it's at least a step short of DV, which is developed
16 vetting?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Which is the standard vetting, I think, for someone in
19 your position; is that correct?
20 A. I don't know that that's the case, no.
21 Q. Did you have any unsupervised access to information
22 designated top secret or above?
23 A. I may have done, yes.
24 Q. Did you ever attend meetings of the National Security
25 Council?
55
1 A. Yes. My understanding, Mr Jay, if I can, is that the SC
2 level allows occasional access to top secret paperwork
3 and also participation in sensitive meetings as well.
4 I believe that's right.
5 Q. Okay. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're
6 saying in paragraph 48 in relation to an incident at
7 Midlands Airport in the autumn of 2010.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Are you saying that someone thought that your vetting
10 status was inadequate?
11 A. Effectively, yes. I think that there was a meeting that
12 involved a discussion about the communications around
13 that issue or incident and the view was formed that
14 I should have been in the meeting but to be in that
15 meeting I would -- my vetting status would need to be
16 changed. I don't know what stage that process had got,
17 because obviously events overtook and I left in January.
18 Q. To be fair to you, these were all matters which it was
19 for government to sort out, not for you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. After publication of the piece in the Guardian in July
22 2009, were any further assurances sought by Mr Cameron
23 or anyone else on his behalf in relation to the
24 Goodman/Mulcaire matter?
25 A. Not that I recall.
56
1 Q. Between July 2009 and May 2010, if I can get your
2 bearings now, do you recall having discussions with
3 Mr Myler or anyone else at the News of the World as to
4 who they would support at the next election?
5 A. I don't recall a specific conversation about the
6 likelihood of endorsement, but we certainly would have
7 had conversations with Mr Myler I think around
8 conference time and, as I say, with other newspapers,
9 and the aim from our perspective certainly was to try
10 and secure their endorsement.
11 Q. The means of securing their endorsement, were those
12 means primarily through Mr Myler or through other people
13 as well?
14 A. As I said earlier, for me it was about a broad range of
15 relationships, you know, making sure that we maximise
16 the opportunities to get our message across as
17 effectively as we could.
18 Q. I'm talking about News of the World now.
19 A. Oh, I'm sorry. With the News of the World specifically
20 we had a relationship with the political editor, I knew
21 one of their columnists quite well because I'd hired him
22 onto the paper, and I would talk to him -- not, if you
23 read his columns, that it got me particularly far -- and
24 others kind of on the paper. So we certainly tried to
25 have good relationships.
57
1 Q. In relation to the Sun you pick this up at paragraph 88,
2 page 02423. You say:
3 "I would talk to Rebekah from time to time, when she
4 was both editor of the Sun and later chief executive of
5 News International."
6 That of course was in the summer of 2009.
7 "Most of these conversations were social although we
8 would on occasions talk about politics."
9 And you've self-evidently pursued a pro-Conservative
10 and later pro-government line. Of course that was your
11 job, wasn't it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You knew her very well. When did you sense that she was
14 going to deliver this major prize?
15 A. I'm not sure that I looked at it as her gift, as you put
16 it, to deliver. And I certainly don't remember a moment
17 at which I thought, you know: great, that's the
18 endorsement secured. I wasn't certain of that fact --
19 actually, I took the view that I wouldn't be certain of
20 it until I saw it in the paper, but obviously there was
21 the conversation between Mr Cameron and James Murdoch,
22 in which we were told that they would be supporting us.
23 Q. That was on 9 September 2009. You say in paragraph 99,
24 however, 02426, you say:
25 "As we approached conference season [that's 2009]
58
1 the paper's coverage became less positive for Labour."
2 So that's something that you would have been
3 tracking, wouldn't you?
4 A. Yes, I would have been paying attention to it, yes.
5 Q. And you were aware, of course, that Mr Cameron was as it
6 were becoming closer to the Murdochs, you presumably
7 knew about the trip to Santorini in 2008, didn't you?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. Was that something you had a hand in organising?
10 A. I may have been involved in the logistics, but I wasn't
11 heavily involved and nor did I go.
12 Q. No. But the fact of his going was something which must
13 have pleased you in many ways; is that right,
14 Mr Coulson?
15 A. I certainly would have taken the view that it was better
16 to have the conversation than not have the conversation.
17 I didn't form a view that it was in any way a sort of
18 key moment.
19 Q. I'm not sure we're looking for key or fulcral moments
20 which are going to cause immediate tectonic shifts.
21 We're looking at a slow change in approach and in
22 affiliations, but it's one moment along the slide, isn't
23 it, away from Labour and towards the Conservatives,
24 would you agree?
25 A. We would certainly have hoped so. We would have hoped
59
1 that it was an opportunity and it was an opportunity
2 for -- I don't know what was said, I wasn't there, but
3 insofar as my view of that meeting, I would have seen it
4 as an opportunity for David Cameron to put himself and
5 the party in the best possible light, but I don't know
6 what happened in the meeting. I don't think we
7 discussed it afterwards. I think he just told me that
8 it went quite well. He went on holiday immediately
9 afterwards and that was that.
10 Q. You knew from past experience that it would take some
11 time to secure the Sun's support since it would come at
12 the right tactical moment from the Sun's perspective in
13 relation to the timing of the next election, didn't you?
14 A. I didn't know that, no. I didn't get involved in the
15 Sun's decision on the timing and frankly, had I done,
16 I would have wanted it to come as a positive endorsement
17 of the Conservatives in our conference.
18 Q. I'm not sure that was quite the question. Maybe
19 I phrased the question badly. You knew that it would
20 take time to secure's the Sun's support, didn't you?
21 A. It did take time.
22 Q. You knew that it would from past experience, didn't you?
23 A. Yes, I certainly saw it as a long process, but remember,
24 during my time working for Conservatives, there were ups
25 and downs, to say the least, and so did I have a plan
60
1 that went to that date in Gordon Brown's conference?
2 No, I didn't, because there were periods where we didn't
3 know when the election was going to be. So through 2007
4 and 2008, the Sun remained at times sort of doggedly
5 supportive of Gordon Brown. So in that regard it was
6 certainly clear to me that it was going to be a long
7 process.
8 Q. But didn't you know that it was also the Sun's strategy
9 or likely to be their strategy to deliver this major
10 prize at the appropriate time from its perspective,
11 which would be as close to the next election as
12 possible?
13 A. I'm not sure when I knew that they were going to do it
14 on that day --
15 Q. I'm not talking about the particular day.
16 A. Sorry.
17 Q. I'm talking more generally. I'm talking about what the
18 Sun said --
19 A. Would it be a big moment for the Sun if they switched to
20 the Tories? I think that's fair to say. Although
21 I would add, if I can, that in terms of shocks, when you
22 look at the political history of the Sun, the far bigger
23 shock was them bagging Tony Blair. Actually returning
24 to the Conservatives in a way you could argue was less
25 of a shock.
61
1 Q. You say in paragraph 99:
2 "I'm sure I discussed it [that's the coverage
3 becoming less positive for Labour] with Rebekah and with
4 Dominic Mohan."
5 So we're now into the summer of 2009, aren't we?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were there frequent discussions with those two about
8 this issue?
9 A. I don't think I'd describe them as frequent, no.
10 Q. Was Rebekah taking the lead or Dominic Mohan?
11 A. I think I had conversations with both of them.
12 I wouldn't describe one as taking the lead. Dominic was
13 the editor of the paper and in terms of my attempts to
14 make sure that the coverage for the Conservative Party,
15 coverage of the headlines, what was going into the
16 paper, that's the editor's job, and so I would have had
17 those conversations with him, and indeed other members
18 of his staff.
19 Q. You knew the ultimate decision was going to be made by
20 Mr Murdoch heavily advised by Rebekah Brooks, didn't
21 you?
22 A. I think I would have taken the view that it would be
23 done -- James Murdoch was now -- had now taken a senior
24 role at News International. I think I probably would
25 have taken the view that it was going to be
62
1 a combination of views, but obviously Rupert Murdoch
2 would play a part in that.
3 Q. Okay. Three people then. We'll have Rupert Murdoch,
4 James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but they're the three
5 key players here, aren't they?
6 A. I wasn't party to the conversation so I don't know if
7 anyone else was involved, but I certainly think it's
8 fair to say that the three of them would have been
9 involved and I suspect Dominic would too.
10 Q. But you knew this organisation very well, Mr Coulson.
11 You knew how they operated. You were hired in part
12 because you understood them. Surely you knew that the
13 way in ultimately to Mr Murdoch was through his son and
14 Rebekah Brooks. That was the dynamic, wasn't it?
15 A. The way in to what?
16 Q. To getting the support of the Sun for the Conservative
17 Party.
18 A. I think it was certainly an important sort of line of
19 communication for me, yes.
20 Q. The truth is, with respect to him, that Mr Mohan was
21 going to do as he was told, wasn't he?
22 A. I don't accept that and I don't think I'm in a position
23 to say because I wasn't there. So I don't know what
24 part Dominic played in those conversations.
25 Q. You've worked with Mr Mohan over the years. We've
63
1 watched him give evidence. If you want a powerful
2 personality, if I may say so, let's look at
3 Rebekah Brooks, but we're not going to find one with
4 Mr Mohan, are we? You know that.
5 A. I'm not here to give a character assessment on Dominic
6 Mohan. I have no idea what part he played in the
7 conversation.
8 Q. Oh all right.
9 A. You seem to have a fairly disparaging view of
10 ex-showbusiness reporters, Mr Jay.
11 Q. I'm not talking disparaging. I'm talking about strength
12 of personality, because strength of personality may be
13 part of the picture here?
14 A. I don't know. I'm not suggesting for a second that
15 conversations with Rebekah were not in any way
16 influential. Yes, I accept that. I also considered my
17 conversations with Dominic, I hope, to have some impact.
18 I didn't have any conversations with James Murdoch,
19 beyond a brief conversation I had with him which I've
20 detailed in my statement when we met briefly for
21 a drink. I certainly didn't have a regular line of
22 communication into him at all.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Have you had the opportunity,
24 Mr Coulson, to watch or read what Mr Rupert Murdoch said
25 on the subject of political support, both in relation to
64
1 the Sun and the News of the World?
2 A. I've looked at some of it, sir. I can't say I have an
3 encyclopaedic recollection of it.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, that would be a phenomenal feat
5 of memory. But I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but in
6 relation to the News of the World, he said that actually
7 the paper that was close to his heart was the Sun and he
8 was really identifying that the Sun's political line was
9 something with which he was involved. Might even be
10 deeply involved. I'm not using his words, I'm using my
11 recollection. Whereas he wasn't quite so interested in
12 the News of the World and he said some observations
13 about that and his lack of interest in that. Did you
14 see that particular part of his evidence?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What I'm interested to know is
17 whether that surprised you or surprises you now or
18 whether it fits in with what you experienced at the
19 time.
20 A. No, I hope I haven't given inadvertently, if I have, the
21 wrong expression here. I'm not for a second suggesting
22 that Rupert Murdoch wasn't a fundamental part of the
23 decision-making process. I'm not suggesting that at
24 all. What I am saying is that from the point of view of
25 my interaction, yes, I spoke to Rebekah, yes, I spoke to
65
1 Dominic, and I didn't have those -- to use the example
2 of Dominic, I didn't have those conversations in the
3 belief that they didn't matter. I believe that they did
4 matter, and I -- but I wasn't party to that -- a meeting
5 or the discussions that took place at News International
6 that led to the decision. I don't know who was
7 involved. I'm sure that Rupert Murdoch was and I'm sure
8 that Rupert Murdoch took a very clear view.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. And would you agree with this,
10 that if Mr Murdoch expressed a very clear view, it would
11 require a remarkably robust editor to say, "Well, thank
12 you very much, Mr Murdoch, I'm very interested in that,
13 I'm actually going 180 degrees in the other direction"?
14 A. It would be a bold move, yes.
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.
16 MR JAY: After the meeting Mr Cameron, Mr James Murdoch,
17 9 September 2009 at the George, Mr Cameron must have
18 been pretty happy, wasn't he?
19 A. We had a brief conversation on the phone and, yes,
20 I think it was positive news.
21 Q. Very positive news, wasn't it?
22 A. It was positive news, but my view was instinctively
23 cautious and I said, "Let's wait and see when it happens
24 and how it happens".
25 Q. Instinctively cautious about everything, Mr Coulson.
66
1 Unless Mr James Murdoch was going to go back on his
2 word, this was in the bank now, wasn't it?
3 A. Well, you know, I didn't want to -- in my mind, I wasn't
4 going to see it as an absolute until I'd seen the paper.
5 Q. Did you have no idea at all when the news would break?
6 A. I'm not sure when I knew precisely when it would break.
7 I certainly didn't play a part in that decision-making,
8 but I can't recall whether or not it was kind of in the
9 ether once the Labour conference had started, it may
10 have been. It may even have been that I had
11 a conversation and was told that it was likely or not.
12 I do remember being at home and seeing the television,
13 Sky News showing the front page, and that was the moment
14 when I felt, because the paper was there, it's happened.
15 But as I say in my statement, I'm not for a second
16 suggesting it was a negative. Of course it wasn't. It
17 was a serious positive for us. But in truth, at the
18 risk of sounding ungrateful, I thought that it was -- it
19 was not the front page that I would have -- if I'd had
20 half the influence that people think I had over the Sun,
21 it was not the front page that I would have wanted. Nor
22 was the timing.
23 Q. Rebekah Brooks was busy phoning everybody else, she was
24 trying to get hold of Gordon Brown that evening and
25 failed and spoke to Lord Mandelson. I'm sure she was
67
1 trying to get hold of you as well, wasn't she?
2 A. I can't remember if we had a conversation that night.
3 I do think I had a conversation with Dominic, and
4 I think it came after I'd soon the front page on the
5 television. That's my recollection. I can't recall if
6 I had a conversation with Rebekah that night. We
7 certainly I think would have spoken the next day if not
8 that night.
9 Q. Didn't you take any delight in the fact, knowing that
10 the front page itself was more anti-Labour than
11 pro-Conservative, that its timing was rather delicious,
12 namely it went online pretty soon after Gordon Brown's
13 leadership speech at that conference?
14 A. It had some impact for the Sun newspaper, but my
15 interests were more selfish. I was more interested in
16 the impact on the Conservative Party and I remember very
17 well searching for the pro-Cameron headline in this
18 edition and I think it was in a sub-deck somewhere. So
19 I'm not trying to suggest that I was disappointed.
20 I wasn't disappointed, of course it was a plus that they
21 were moving to the Conservatives, but I would have
22 preferred them to have done it in a different way. And
23 at a different time.
24 Q. What, nearer to the election?
25 A. No, I'd have liked for them to have done it during our
68
1 conference.
2 Q. We know there was a certain amount of anger in the
3 Labour Party at this turn of events. Does that surprise
4 you?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And the converse would also be the case. There would be
7 satisfaction if not jubilation in the Conservative
8 Party?
9 A. I certainly wouldn't describe it as jubilation, but it
10 was -- it wasn't a bad day in the office.
11 Q. No. Did you not feel in any way, Mr Coulson, without
12 belittling everything else that you were doing -- and
13 you've told us that you were doing a lot -- that you had
14 secured the major prize, what you'd been employed in
15 May/June 2007 to secure?
16 A. No, I didn't feel that way at all.
17 Q. Can I ask you, please, about some of the meetings which
18 you have provided details of to us? AEC3, which is
19 going to be tab 4 in that bundle. They're a list of
20 your media meetings in opposition, our page 02397. We
21 can see looking generally at this list that you're
22 seeing everybody, really, including representatives of
23 the broadcast media. Would you agree?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. On New Year's Eve 2008, there's a party at the Brooks'
69
1 farm; is that right?
2 A. We stayed at -- with Rebekah and Charlie Brooks for New
3 Year's Eve, yes.
4 Q. And there was the wedding in June 2009 and then on
5 30 September 2009 there was dinner. That was the date,
6 I think, that the Sun headline, "Labour's lost it", came
7 out. Do you recall that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that's at the Osbournes', we can see; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you've listed everybody who was there, have you?
12 A. I believe so, yes.
13 Q. I suppose the mood might not have been universally
14 favourable because we can see who else was there, but
15 I don't know, I can't speak for Sir Harold Evans, what
16 he was saying, but apart from him perhaps everybody else
17 was pretty happy presumably?
18 A. Yes, I imagine so.
19 Q. What we don't see on this list inevitably is all the
20 telephone calls you might have had with people on your
21 mobile or whatever; is that right?
22 A. Yes. As I look at the guest list of this dinner,
23 I don't want to set a hare running here but that's my
24 recollection of who was there. I don't think anyone
25 else was invited. That's something you might want to
70
1 double-check with others who were there. I'm pretty
2 sure I'm right about that.
3 Q. If you turn over the page to 02399, we see 5 November
4 2009, coffee at the City Inn with Fred Michel of
5 News International.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. "General politics discussion". Can you remember
8 anything more about that?
9 A. I think it was the first time I met him. So I think it
10 was literally a hello.
11 Q. What did you understand his role to be?
12 A. The corporate affairs guy for News International.
13 Q. But with what raft of responsibilities?
14 A. That brief -- that broad, rather. I didn't know whether
15 or not he had a specific brief. Didn't occur to me that
16 he did. He was the new corporate affairs executive in
17 News International that went right across the company.
18 Q. Of course including News Corporation for this purpose;
19 is that right?
20 A. I don't know what his -- I didn't know then what his or
21 now frankly what his News Corp -- specific News Corp
22 role was. In any event, I viewed him as a News
23 International not a News Corp person.
24 Q. But you understood that he was the European lobbyist, to
25 put it in the vernacular, for the commercial interests
71
1 of News International, News Corp, didn't you?
2 A. I'm not sure that I did. I saw him as a corporate
3 affairs executive. I didn't know -- I know that he had
4 a background in European politics, that's what led to
5 the -- his hand in the Aznar meeting. I knew obviously
6 he was French and he spent a lot of time involved in
7 European politics, as I understand it, but beyond that
8 no, I didn't have any real view or information about his
9 role.
10 Q. But what do you understand by the term corporate affairs
11 executive?
12 A. From my experience it was logistics. Conference, for
13 example, he might have a hand in organising any News
14 International function. He would be involved on sort of
15 broader issues for News International. That's how
16 I would understand. Not involved in editorial.
17 Q. Certainly not, but it's all rather vague, Mr Coulson.
18 He was a pretty high-powered executive, wasn't he?
19 A. Well, when I met him here, I didn't give any thought to
20 him being especially high-powered. I didn't know -- it
21 was a new set-up at News International after I'd left.
22 James Murdoch was there, there were lots of people there
23 that I didn't know and who I'd never met, so I didn't
24 know precisely where he fitted into the hierarchy. Nor
25 did I ask, I don't think.
72
1 Q. Did you know whether he was someone who had frequent
2 contact with government ministers or their advisers?
3 A. Well, I knew that as a corporate affairs person he was
4 likely to sort of take on a role along those lines.
5 Beyond that, no.
6 Q. And with what end or to what end was he taking up that
7 role?
8 A. I don't -- I don't know. I certainly didn't have any
9 conversations with him that were specific to News
10 International's aims.
11 Q. Apart from this one conversation you see noted here,
12 were there other conversations with him?
13 A. I've looked at my itineraries in -- well, first of all,
14 let's take it chronologically. As I touched on earlier,
15 he had a hand in the organising of a lunch between
16 David Cameron and the former Spanish Prime Minister.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I don't recall whether or not he attended that lunch.
19 And then later in my itineraries, I've noticed another
20 meeting with him, but it had a line put through it.
21 I don't remember it so I'm assuming that got cancelled.
22 However, once in government I do recall talking to him,
23 albeit very briefly, I think in my office. I can't find
24 a formal record of this meeting and it could well be
25 that he was seeing someone else or was in the building
73
1 with another meeting and popped in, but in any event
2 that was a brief conversation, as I recall it.
3 Q. Before June 2010, did he discuss with you News
4 Corporation's intention to seek to acquire the remaining
5 publicly owned shares in BSkyB?
6 A. I don't recall any conversation along those lines, no.
7 Q. Are you saying there wasn't such a conversation or are
8 you saying that you don't recall one?
9 A. I'm saying that I don't recall one.
10 Q. When the bid was announced, was it a surprise to you or
11 not?
12 A. I'm not sure I knew about it in advance. I would want
13 to go back and look at the business press in advance of
14 it. I don't whether or not -- where the commentary was,
15 whether or not it had been flagged in the papers, where
16 the sort of level of speculation was about it. I seem
17 to remember that there was a fair amount of commentary
18 in advance. I might be wrong about that. That's my
19 recollection.
20 Q. Not something Mrs Brooks discussed with you, was it?
21 A. No, I don't remember any conversations with Rebekah
22 about it.
23 Q. Going back to Mr Michel, it's paragraph 95 of your
24 statement, 02425. You say you met with him on a few
25 occasions for coffee including one occasion possibly at
74
1 Number 10. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What was he doing there on that occasion, do you
4 remember?
5 A. I'm sorry, Mr Jay, are you referring to my reference to
6 the possible meeting at Number 10?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. As I explained earlier, that's the meeting I'm referring
9 to where --
10 Q. This is a lunch, is it?
11 A. Which is why I'm putting -- I'm sorry, are we talking
12 about the Aznar lunch or the possibility of a meeting in
13 Number 10?
14 Q. I was seeking to clarify which we were talking about.
15 A. I'm sorry. The possibility of the coffee at Number 10
16 is the meeting that I discussed, that I explained,
17 obviously badly, previously. The Aznar lunch was in
18 opposition and was at some time prior to that in 2009.
19 Q. At that point, was Mr Aznar involved with News
20 Corporation?
21 A. I believe he was, yes.
22 Q. Was he on the board of News Corporation?
23 A. I believe that's right, yes.
24 Q. You say you can't recall but it's possible that
25 Mr Michel attended that lunch?
75
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That's your best recollection, you're not sure?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Were the affairs of News Corporation discussed at that
5 lunch?
6 A. No. Not as far as I remember.
7 Q. Can you remember what the discussion was about?
8 A. The discussion was about Spanish politics and British
9 politics. The lunch took place in the -- I believe it
10 took place in the House of Commons and it was a -- the
11 first time they'd met, I think I'm right in saying, and
12 it was a political conversation.
13 Q. But it was a lunch that Mr Michel organised, it's not
14 one that you organised; is that right?
15 A. He certainly played a part in it is my recollection,
16 and -- in terms of the logistics of the lunch.
17 Q. Okay. You go to Downing Street in May 2010. I've been
18 asked to put to you this question, Mr Coulson: your
19 salary was cut to £140,000 a year, wasn't it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you explore whether it was possible for private
22 donors to top up your salary?
23 A. No.
24 Q. I think it's implicit in that answer that your salary
25 was not topped up by private donors?
76
1 A. Not by private donors, no. As I say in my statement,
2 there was a notice payment paid to me as part of my
3 Conservative contract.
4 Q. I understand, yes. You've told us about the BSkyB bid.
5 Did you know what Mr Cable's attitude was to the bid
6 before it became clear on 21 December 2010?
7 A. I don't believe so, no.
8 Q. You don't believe so or --
9 A. I don't have a specific memory of -- I certainly didn't
10 talk to him about it and if it had been reported that
11 he'd taken a particular view, and that's possible,
12 I suppose, I can't remember the exact chronology, then
13 through that route, yes I may have been aware, but
14 I wasn't involved in the BSkyB bid. Save for my
15 communications role.
16 Q. And of course there was a political storm of sorts on
17 21 December 2010 and you were naturally involved in that
18 since it impacted on your role; that's right, isn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you speak to Mr Hunt that day?
21 A. I don't recall doing so.
22 Q. Did you speak to Mr Hunt about the bid at any stage?
23 A. I don't recall any conversations with Mr Hunt about
24 BSkyB.
25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Was there ever any conversation with
77
1 any politician that sought, whether sensibly or not, to
2 gain the benefit of your experience of having worked for
3 News International for the purpose of considering this
4 bid?
5 A. Not that I remember, sir, no.
6 MR JAY: I've been asked to put this general point to you,
7 going back to when you were editor of the News of the
8 World: had the News of the World ever plugged Sky TV
9 programmes?
10 A. My experience of that issue is that when there was
11 a promotion, Sky paid a price for it. You know,
12 literally. I mean it was bought as promotional space.
13 That was the main sort of crossover between Sky and the
14 paper.
15 Q. And they paid the same commercial rate as everybody
16 else, did they?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Not given a favourable rate?
19 A. I don't know. I didn't get involved in that.
20 Q. Can we look at AEC4, which is your list of media
21 meetings in government.
22 A. Which tab is that?
23 Q. In your bundle it's tab 5.
24 A. Thank you.
25 Q. We can see from that that when the Coalition government
78
1 is instituted, Mr Cameron invites most of the important
2 players, editors, BBC political editors, et cetera, to
3 Downing Street over the next month or six weeks; that's
4 clear, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I think Mr Rupert Murdoch didn't happen to be the first,
7 he appears to be the second on this list. Mr Murdoch
8 mentioned that you were there. Not quite sure why or in
9 what context. Could you help us with that?
10 A. I wasn't in the meeting, but I did see him prior to the
11 meeting and very briefly before the meeting and again
12 very briefly after the meeting, but I wasn't in the
13 meeting itself.
14 Q. There's a lot of fascination about people going in
15 through the back door of Downing Street. Are you able
16 to enlighten us with that at all or is it a complete red
17 herring?
18 A. No, I think he did come through the back door, as
19 I think Mr Murdoch may have told you. I think that's
20 how it happened under previous administrations and
21 I suspect it kind of happened automatically, I think.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Would that be so for all these
23 people? There's a list of back door people and front
24 door people, except those who stand outside the front
25 door and talk from it?
79
1 A. I don't know which door these other people came through,
2 sir, to be honest.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right, all right. I have to keep
4 myself entertained, Mr Coulson.
5 MR JAY: Enlighten us on this. There may be absolutely
6 nothing in this point. Is there a system where some
7 people come in one way and other people come in through
8 the front or not?
9 A. I don't think so. I know there were some parties where
10 guests would arrive through the back because there's
11 a car park through the back so it's a bit easier. In
12 terms of Mr Dacre's meeting, for example, I have no idea
13 which door he came through. Had he asked to come
14 through the back door either for reasons of his own or
15 because he wanted to park his car there, I'm sure that
16 would have happened.
17 Q. In government was it ever part of your role or practice
18 to brief against particular individuals, as has been
19 alleged by, or against some of your predecessors?
20 A. No. My job was to -- I would certainly brief in terms
21 of politics, but in terms of people's private lives, no,
22 I don't recall ever doing so.
23 Q. I think I'm using the word "brief" in the sort of sense
24 that's quite widely understood, it's a slightly
25 disparaging context, but one can think of various
80
1 synonyms for "brief" but I think you know what I mean?
2 A. In my conversations with journalists I certainly
3 wouldn't hide my political views, obviously. That was
4 the purpose of the conversation. But no, I don't
5 believe I did that.
6 Q. In terms of your discharging your responsibilities, your
7 role only is to play with an entirely straight bat,
8 disseminate government policy, inform, make people --
9 ensure they understand what government is up to, but
10 never seek to spin from time to time, to influence, to
11 cajole, to brief or indulge in any of those sort of
12 slightly murkier activities? Do I have it right?
13 A. Well, define "brief". I mean, I thought the question --
14 apologies if I misunderstood -- I thought the question
15 was did I brief against people on a personal basis.
16 I don't believe I did. But -- beyond their politics.
17 But did I have strong views and would I express those
18 views in conversations with journalists about
19 Gordon Brown or Labour politicians, Labour policy,
20 individuals concerned and the stance they were taking?
21 I think I probably would in the same way that I sought
22 to give or articulate as positive a picture possible for
23 the Conservatives, but I don't believe that I did so
24 inappropriately.
25 Q. As an observer of political life in this country over
81
1 the last 20 years, do you think the sort of things I've
2 been describing, without reference to you of course, are
3 an issue which needs consideration or not?
4 A. In terms of negative briefing?
5 Q. Mm.
6 A. I think that moment came to a head with the Damian
7 McBride affair, of course when we were in opposition,
8 which resulted in some very personal stories, stories
9 which by the way were published in News International
10 papers, as well as other papers.
11 Q. Okay. Can I ask you, please, about paragraph 53 of your
12 statement. You say in the second sentence that you "got
13 involved in policy only in relation to its likely impact
14 on the media". Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you feel at any stage it might have been an excessive
17 interest in how policy would play out in the media
18 rather than in its intrinsic merits?
19 A. Possibly. And if anyone was kind of thinking in those
20 terms, I guess it would have been me as the person
21 responsible for communications.
22 Q. Is this a problem which is a significant one or one
23 which is overplayed, in your view?
24 A. I don't think it's -- I don't think that it's
25 necessarily a significant problem. I think that
82
1 political parties have to, with the modern media, fight
2 hard to get their message across, and also there's a --
3 you know, there is a personality aspect in politics that
4 has probably increased over the years. And that
5 therefore requires -- certainly required for me a lot of
6 attention, and you sought to make sure that an authentic
7 view of in particular David Cameron was being sort of
8 expressed through the media. That would require a lot
9 of work.
10 Q. You left Downing Street in January 2011 in circumstances
11 we're not going to discuss, but can I ask you this
12 simple question: did you discuss your departure with
13 Rebekah Brooks or anyone else in News International?
14 A. If I did, it was after I had resigned. I'm confident of
15 that. You know, I've tried to remember the exact chain
16 of events. As you can possibly appreciate, it was
17 a fairly difficult period and I can't be absolutely
18 sure, but I think that -- I don't think I had -- I told
19 anyone I was resigning until after I'd told the
20 Prime Minister.
21 Q. You were asked to deal with the case of Mr Driscoll, who
22 secured a substantial sum by way of compensation from an
23 employment tribunal. Are you with me?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The hearing was after you left News International. The
83
1 hearing I think was in 2008. Were any arrangements made
2 or were you asked to give evidence on behalf of News
3 International, or the formal respondent was actually NGN
4 Limited, which is News Group Limited?
5 A. No, I wasn't, which is a matter of considerable regret.
6 Q. Did you have any awareness that the case was going on as
7 it was going on, before its outcome was announced?
8 A. I'm not sure that I knew about it in advance, but
9 obviously it attracted some media attention once it got
10 under way. I don't think I knew about it in advance of
11 that. I certainly don't have any recollection of
12 knowing about it in advance.
13 Q. And when the media attention arose, did you think: I can
14 give evidence here?
15 A. No, I was working for the Conservatives at that point
16 and I took the view -- and I've thought about this
17 since, you know, was it the right decision? I don't
18 know. I took the view that it would only make it worse
19 if I then tried to intervene. I certainly didn't have
20 the view that I could sort of impose myself on the
21 hearing at any juncture and I'm not sure that at what
22 point the damaging -- what I considered to be the sort
23 of damaging comments in the judgment were made. I think
24 it's probable that the damaging comments came, obviously
25 because it was the judgment, at the conclusion of the
84
1 hearing, so by then it was too late anyway.
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You, of course, appreciate that it's
3 for the parties to the litigation to decide who they
4 want to ask to give evidence but nobody ever came to
5 you?
6 A. Yes, sir, that's right. I may be wrong about this, but
7 my understanding is that the tribunal themselves do have
8 a process by which they could have asked to talk to me.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But it's quite difficult to see why
10 a tribunal should do that in the context of adversarial
11 litigation. In an inquisitorial system such as the
12 Inquiry, that's controlled by the Inquiry, in that
13 context me. But in the normal form of litigation, the
14 parties decide who they call and it would be quite wrong
15 for the judge to decide of his own volition to do so
16 absent very special circumstances. Anyway, but
17 presumably you'd left records behind of your dealings
18 with Mr Driscoll which were accessible?
19 A. Yes. I think that some of those records formed part of
20 the case. If I can make this point, I've asked News
21 International to furnish me with all the background to
22 this case in terms of witness statements, in terms of my
23 own involvement and anything else, and they've not been
24 able to do so because I'm an ex-employee. So all
25 I have -- and the questions that presumably you're going
85
1 to ask me -- all I have to work on is the judgment
2 itself and the precis and the extracts of my own emails
3 and letters.
4 MR JAY: Which were referred to in the tribunal's decision,
5 which is under tab 11 of the bundle. The decision is
6 quite intricate, as you're aware, but you've presumably
7 had a chance to study it.
8 A. I have.
9 Q. There was a complaint first of all by the Arsenal
10 Football Club in relation to a piece News of the World
11 wrote about one of its footballers.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That culminated in disciplinary proceedings in October
14 2005 and a warning. If you look at paragraph 104, which
15 is page 021349, Mr Kuttner, who I think was the managing
16 editor then, was he?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Wrote to you by email dated 9 November 2005, so the
19 tribunal had that. The contents of what he wrote are
20 telling.
21 "He stated that the situation was not black and
22 white enough to dismiss Matt Driscoll. He went on to
23 state 'of course we could still fire him: and pay the
24 going rate for that. Mike Dunn [he's the man who
25 carried out the disciplinary hearing] tells me Driscoll
86
1 can't be got shot off?' The decision to give the
2 claimant a first warning, although the outcome of
3 a disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Dunn, was made by
4 Mr Kuttner, with the agreement of the editor,
5 Mr Coulson."
6 Is that as far as you're concerned accurate?
7 A. It's accurate in terms of what you're reading. It's not
8 accurate in terms of the sort of wider framework of the
9 judgment because those words "can't be got shot of",
10 misspelt here, were directly attributed to me, which is
11 wrong. They are clearly a report of Mike Dunn's words
12 via Mr Kuttner.
13 Q. But isn't that what this says, Mr Coulson? Doesn't it
14 say in the fourth line "Mr Dunn tells me Driscoll can't
15 be shot ..." I think there's some mistake, it should be
16 "got shot of", not "got shot off".
17 A. "Got shot of", yes. Sorry, my point which may be off
18 your question, in which case apologies, is that the
19 "can't be got shot of" seems to form a fundamental part
20 of the judgment as coming from me, as being my words,
21 and they're not my words.
22 Q. I'm not sure that error is made by the tribunal.
23 I think all they say is the words come from Mr Dunn, but
24 the decision to give the claimant a warning was made by
25 Mr Kuttner with your agreement. Is that correct?
87
1 A. The judgment, I think, says that it was a pretext for my
2 desire to "gets shot of" the claimant. I never said
3 that.
4 Q. Okay. Paragraph 105:
5 "The claimant felt it was highly unfair for Mr Dunn
6 to have issued him with a warning. He wrote a letter,
7 10 November 2005, to that effect and copied it to
8 Mr Coulson. He informed him that although he could not
9 accept the criticisms made of them because he believed
10 them to be unfounded, in the interests of harmony he
11 decided not to appeal.
12 "Mr Coulson responded to Mr Driscoll's letter. The
13 contents of his response are also very telling. He
14 stated:
15 "'I also disagree with the adjudication. In my view
16 your actions on this matter merited dismissal.'"
17 Is that what you said?
18 A. Yes. If I can add again briefly that I'd like to have
19 seen the full letter before I was asked to respond to
20 this. And I've not seen the full letter. All I have to
21 work on is the judgment. And on the basis that --
22 I don't wish to go on about this, but on the basis that
23 the judgment couldn't even get my quote right, I am
24 therefore not particularly willing to accept their
25 interpretation of it.
88
1 Q. I think we've already established that what you believe
2 is attributed to you in paragraph 104 is not because it
3 comes from Mr Dunn. Do you see that?
4 A. I'm referring to the judgment, the later judgment.
5 Q. What they're doing, the tribunal, in paragraph 106 is
6 setting out a direct citation from something you've said
7 which might appear to be somewhat hostile and then to
8 paraphrase what else your letter said:
9 "He went on to state [that's you going on to state]
10 that his performance would be monitored closely and that
11 if it did not improve or if there was any repeat of any
12 of the failings, further disciplinary action may be
13 invoked against him. He offered no words of
14 encouragement. In the context of Mr Coulson being the
15 editor of the paper, this was a bullying remark."
16 The simple question is: that's a fair point, isn't
17 it?
18 A. No, I don't accept that. It was a reaction to a letter
19 that he had sent to Mike Dunn and copied to me. I was
20 irritated by it, I will accept, and I will also accept
21 that my response was perhaps intemperate, but I do not
22 accept that it equated to bullying, and in any event,
23 following on from this letter, Matt Driscoll went on to
24 kind of continue in his work in a very kind of positive
25 way. I think that's documented. I think that Mike Dunn
89
1 wrote to him shortly afterwards with a message that was
2 basically "upwards and onwards" and that was -- that was
3 supported. I was happy to support Mike Dunn in that
4 process.
5 Q. But the tribunal found that wasn't so, that this was the
6 start of a downward path, but I think what is most
7 material is that whereas in formal terms all that
8 Mr Driscoll received was a warning, you were saying,
9 well, he should have been sacked. That's true, isn't
10 it?
11 A. My view was that the issues that led to the tribunal
12 were serious, and should be taken seriously, and yes,
13 I expressed the view that in my view he perhaps should
14 have lost his job over it, but that didn't happen and
15 I accepted the decision of the tribunal and there was no
16 grudge. I did not at that point, as the tribunal find,
17 decide that that was the end of Mr Driscoll's career at
18 the News of the World. I think that both the tribunal
19 and Mr Driscoll kind of picked different moments as to
20 when they claim I decided this. In another part of
21 I think Mr Driscoll's evidence he says that it started
22 with the story about the Arsenal shirt. Now, if I was
23 making decisions about News of the World staff and their
24 future on the basis of a failure to stand up a tip or
25 a story being lost to another newspaper, three-quarters
90
1 of the staff would have been on disciplinaries. That's
2 the nature of -- it's part of the cut and thrust of
3 Sunday newspapers. And in any event, it was a story
4 about whether or not Arsenal would be wearing purple
5 shirts. It wasn't an exclusive about who was the next
6 manager of England, for example.
7 Q. Later in 2006, paragraph 130, do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. "Mr Wallis [that's a witness we've heard here] reported
10 to Mr Coulson. Mr Coulson's response is instructive.
11 He stated by email to Mr Wallis dated 19 July 2006 he
12 wanted him out as quickly and cheaply as possible."
13 Do you remember that email?
14 A. Inasmuch as I've been reminded of it both through this
15 tribunal and before. Again I've asked for all the
16 emails. So I don't know what the exact context of it
17 was, I don't know what came before or followed
18 afterwards.
19 Q. I think all the tribunal are saying is there was a bit
20 of a pattern here, if you follow me, certainly if you
21 marry up the November 2005 email with the 2006 email
22 it's consistent. You want this man out and reasonably
23 you're bullying him. That's the truth, isn't it?
24 A. No, it's not the truth. The first point to make is that
25 in between times it was clear that I'd supported Mr Dunn
91
1 in actually trying to get Mr Driscoll's relationship
2 with the News of the World back on track.
3 The other point I would make is that at some time,
4 many months, several months before I sent this email,
5 Mr Driscoll himself had instigated severance
6 negotiations with the paper. So my recollection is that
7 this email, "want him out as quickly and cheaply as
8 possible", is absolutely in relation to that process.
9 Q. Okay. So you disagree with the tribunal's clear
10 findings; is that right?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. I think that's as far as I can really take that issue,
13 Mr Coulson. Those all the questions I had for you. Was
14 there anything you particularly wanted to say that we
15 might have left out?
16 A. Can I make one point in relation to the theory that
17 there was some kind of deal between News Corp or News
18 International and the Conservative Party over the issue
19 with BSkyB? Can I just make one very straightforward
20 point?
21 If there was a deal, and if there was a conspiracy,
22 as people seem to be suggesting, why was Vince Cable
23 given the job? It is in the Prime Minister's gift to
24 decide who -- of course there was the complex nature of
25 the Coalition, but it was the Prime Minister's gift to
92
1 decide who held which brief in his Cabinet, so if there
2 was this theory, if there was this conspiracy running
3 that David Cameron was going to somehow or other return
4 the favour to News International, why on earth did he
5 give it to -- and I would choose my words carefully --
6 a combative member of the Liberal Democrat Party?
7 Q. Of course, Mr Cable was already the business secretary
8 in May 2010, was he not? The BSkyB bid would fall
9 within his province and that wasn't announced until June
10 2010.
11 A. No, but the conspiracy, I think, suggests that this was
12 a deal that was done some time before.
13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. Well, it's an advocacy
14 point rather than a factual point.
15 Can I ask a very different question? You probably
16 as much if not more than anyone else have doubtless
17 reflected on the issue which is at the core of this
18 particular part of the Inquiry, which was, of course,
19 set up by the Prime Minister in July last year. And the
20 issue is whether the relationship between the press and
21 the politicians has become either close or no longer
22 entirely conducive to good government, whichever way you
23 want to put it.
24 Now, whether this happened many years ago, whether
25 it's a consequence of the involvement of those who've
93
1 been very heavily concerned with newspapers into the
2 heart of communications in government, one could debate,
3 but I would like your view on whether that relationship
4 has become too close so that it gets in the way and how
5 that should be addressed, if you have a view on it.
6 A. Well, the Prime Minister himself has said that he
7 accepts that it got too cosy, and I'm not minded to
8 disagree with him. I think that it's perfectly clear
9 now, as a result of this process, that the relationships
10 with the media have got in the way of the message, let's
11 put it that way. I think that is abundantly clear.
12 What you do about it, I think, is much more difficult
13 because I would hate to think that -- I'm not suggesting
14 that this is on your mind, sir, but I would hate to
15 think that any barriers would be erected, more barriers
16 would be erected between politics or politicians --
17 politics more importantly, and the press.
18 You only have to look at the turnout at last week's
19 local elections which was low, to say the least. People
20 are disengaging with politics. If you make it more
21 difficult for the media to report on politics, if you
22 make it more difficult for journalists to understand
23 what it is you're trying to do, that's going to get an
24 awful lot worse.
25 Some people may say that that turnout is because of
94
1 this Inquiry or because of people's general reaction of
2 what's been reported over the last months. I'm not sure
3 I buy that theory. I come from the perspective of
4 someone who's worked on both sides of the fence and
5 I just sincerely hope, sir, with respect that the result
6 of this part of the Inquiry does not, as I say, erect
7 yet more barriers between what is already a pretty
8 difficult process.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: If you'd heard what I said earlier
10 today, you would know that I am very keen on ensuring
11 that politicians have a mechanism to identify what their
12 policies are and to seek to engage the public in them,
13 and that journalists have the ability and responsibility
14 to hold politicians and others, in which number I've
15 always included the judiciary, to account for what they
16 do. The question is how to ensure that that happens in
17 an open, transparent and appropriate way.
18 It may be you don't have an answer, but if from your
19 experience working both sides of the fence you do have
20 a view -- it's not going to bind me, so you don't need
21 to worry about it -- I'd be interested to hear it. If
22 not, then not.
23 A. It is incredibly difficult. I mean, one point that
24 troubles me in evidence, if I can say, that's come out
25 throughout this Inquiry, is the idea that a friendship
95
1 is always based on some ulterior motive. People are
2 friends, people talk to each other and that's certainly
3 true of the overlap between politics and the press.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not so sure that's fair, because
5 equally I have said not once but many times that
6 politicians are entitled to be friends with people,
7 journalists are entitled to be friends with people. The
8 question is to differentiate and to be clear about the
9 difference between social relationships and any form of
10 business.
11 A. Yes, I have to say I think that what's happened over the
12 course of the last couple of years, perhaps over the
13 course of the last year or so, I think is going to solve
14 that problem for you. I think the possibility now of
15 politicians not being transparent about their dealings
16 with the media, I think the events that have come to
17 pass will go a long way to dealing with that.
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, if I could be assured that the
19 very fact of the last seven months had achieved the
20 purpose so that I could go back to productive judicial
21 work, I might be quite pleased with that, but that's
22 a bit of a big leap, isn't it?
23 A. I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest that, sir.
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, all right. All right.
25 MR DAVIES: Could I just say while Mr Coulson is there that
96
1 I think what he may have had in mind is paragraph 107 of
2 the tribunal's decision in the Driscoll case because
3 they do there say it was a pretext for Mr Coulson's
4 desire to "get shot of the claimant".
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm sure that's right, but
6 Mr Rhodri Davies, as you know and I know, sometimes
7 judgments don't always spell out all the dots. I take
8 the point, though.
9 Mr Coulson, thank you very much indeed.
10 A. Thank you, sir.
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand why this has not been an
12 easy process, but there it is. It's been important.
13 Thank you very much.
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99