This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23098284

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Phone hacking: Go-ahead for Brooks and Coulson cases Phone hacking: Go-ahead for Brooks and Coulson cases
(35 minutes later)
Five former News of the World staff, including ex-editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, have lost a legal attempt to block their prosecution on phone hacking charges. Five former News of the World staff members, including ex-editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, have lost a legal attempt to block their prosecution on phone hacking charges.
Revelations about phone hacking led to the closure of the News of the World in July 2011. Revelations about hacking led to the closure of the newspaper in July 2011.
The trial is due to take place in September, after Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge dismissed their appeals.The trial is due to take place in September, after Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge dismissed their appeals.
Ms Brooks and Mr Coulson have pleaded not guilty to the charges. The five claimed accessing voicemails through hacking, after they had been listened to, was not an offence.
Former NoW senior reporter James Weatherup, former managing editor Stuart Kuttner, and former news editor Ian Edmondson, also lost their appeals. The two former NoW editors, alongside former senior reporter James Weatherup, former managing editor Stuart Kuttner, and former news editor Ian Edmondson have all pleaded not guilty.
'No prejudice'
Lord Judge allowed the names of the defendants to be reported, saying: "We can see no possible prejudice to the fairness of the forthcoming trial.
"We must not be unrealistic - there can hardly be anyone in the country who does not know to whom this case applies."
The five defendants argued that the accessing of voicemails through hacking, after they had been listened to by the intended recipient, was not an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.The five defendants argued that the accessing of voicemails through hacking, after they had been listened to by the intended recipient, was not an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying "contrary to the submission on behalf of the appellants, the resulting situation is not lacking in legal certainty."The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying "contrary to the submission on behalf of the appellants, the resulting situation is not lacking in legal certainty."
Lord Judge allowed the names of the defendants to be reported, saying:"We can see no possible prejudice to the fairness of the forthcoming trial. The Court also refused to give the go-ahead for the five defendants to take up the issue with the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.
"We must not be unrealistic - there can hardly be anyone in the country who does not know to whom this case applies." Lord Judge said the five would only pay legal costs if they are convicted.