This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/05/rebekah-brooks-prince-william-bikini

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Rebekah Brooks approved payment for Prince William bikini photo, court told Rebekah Brooks approved payment for Prince William bikini photo, court told
(about 3 hours later)
Rebekah Brooks approved a £4,000 payment for a photograph of Prince William in a bikini posing as a Bond girl when she edited the Sun, but never published the picture, the Old Bailey has heard.Rebekah Brooks approved a £4,000 payment for a photograph of Prince William in a bikini posing as a Bond girl when she edited the Sun, but never published the picture, the Old Bailey has heard.
The former News International chief executive was forwarded an email from a journalist on the paper when she was editor requesting the money for a contact at Sandhurst, the military academy where the prince was training in 2006. When asked "What do you think, boss?" she replied "OK", the hacking trial jury was told on Thursday.The former News International chief executive was forwarded an email from a journalist on the paper when she was editor requesting the money for a contact at Sandhurst, the military academy where the prince was training in 2006. When asked "What do you think, boss?" she replied "OK", the hacking trial jury was told on Thursday.
Prosecutor Rebecca Chalkley said the picture was not published, but the Sun ran a "mock-up" of it, with William's head superimposed on someone else's body and the headline "Willy in a Bikini" in September 2006.Prosecutor Rebecca Chalkley said the picture was not published, but the Sun ran a "mock-up" of it, with William's head superimposed on someone else's body and the headline "Willy in a Bikini" in September 2006.
The article claimed "Prince William caused a stir at a Sandhurst 007 bash by dressing as a Bond girl" and added his then girlfriend Kate Middleton attended the party wearing a wetsuit and carrying a toy gun.The article claimed "Prince William caused a stir at a Sandhurst 007 bash by dressing as a Bond girl" and added his then girlfriend Kate Middleton attended the party wearing a wetsuit and carrying a toy gun.
The jury was shown the email which read: "My best contact at Sandhurst who has provided a string of great stuff over a period of months, offered us a picture of William at a James Bond party dressed as a Bond girl. He is wearing a bikini and an open Hawaiian shirt."The jury was shown the email which read: "My best contact at Sandhurst who has provided a string of great stuff over a period of months, offered us a picture of William at a James Bond party dressed as a Bond girl. He is wearing a bikini and an open Hawaiian shirt."
The email continued that the person offering the photograph wanted £4,000 "up front" to pay for a course for his wife, but that the picture should only be used when Sandhurst was on its summer break. The journalist added: "He assures me that although this is not the way we would normally operate we would not be let down. Indeed I already have the guy with the picture over a barrel because I know his identity."The email continued that the person offering the photograph wanted £4,000 "up front" to pay for a course for his wife, but that the picture should only be used when Sandhurst was on its summer break. The journalist added: "He assures me that although this is not the way we would normally operate we would not be let down. Indeed I already have the guy with the picture over a barrel because I know his identity."
The email was forwarded to Brooks. "Less than ten minutes later, she says OK," said Chalkey.The email was forwarded to Brooks. "Less than ten minutes later, she says OK," said Chalkey.
Brooks denies conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.Brooks denies conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.
Paddy Harverson, former communication secretary to Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, told the jury he recalled a conversation with Brooks about the Sun proposing to publish a photograph of William.Paddy Harverson, former communication secretary to Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, told the jury he recalled a conversation with Brooks about the Sun proposing to publish a photograph of William.
He said the conversation, in August 2006, was as a result of the Sun publishing pictures and a story about Prince Harry headlined "Playboy prince cops a feel. Dirty Harry". The front page story and double spread inside alleged Harry was "canoodling" with a woman who was not his then girlfriend, the court heard.He said the conversation, in August 2006, was as a result of the Sun publishing pictures and a story about Prince Harry headlined "Playboy prince cops a feel. Dirty Harry". The front page story and double spread inside alleged Harry was "canoodling" with a woman who was not his then girlfriend, the court heard.
Harverson said he told Brooks, then Wade, the Harry photographs were old and not recently taken.Harverson said he told Brooks, then Wade, the Harry photographs were old and not recently taken.
Notes he made during the conversation were shown to the jury. In them he wrote "RW: my guy say did deal on Friday. He claimed they were his pictures. We knew him".Notes he made during the conversation were shown to the jury. In them he wrote "RW: my guy say did deal on Friday. He claimed they were his pictures. We knew him".
Harverson also wrote down Brooks saying: "If we fucked up, what are we going to say."Harverson also wrote down Brooks saying: "If we fucked up, what are we going to say."
Jonathan Laidlaw QC, for Brooks asked him if this was Brooks accepting "and I won't use her language, but that 'we got it wrong'" over the Harry story.Jonathan Laidlaw QC, for Brooks asked him if this was Brooks accepting "and I won't use her language, but that 'we got it wrong'" over the Harry story.
Harverson agreed. The paper had published an apology the next day, the jury heard.Harverson agreed. The paper had published an apology the next day, the jury heard.
Referring to the same notes, Laidlaw highlighted one other passage in which Harverson had written "pic of PW in underwear wearing pink feather boa".Referring to the same notes, Laidlaw highlighted one other passage in which Harverson had written "pic of PW in underwear wearing pink feather boa".
Laidlaw put it to him: "There was a discussion, but it was about a different photograph. About the prince in boxer shorts and a feather boa and not about the prince wearing a bikini."Laidlaw put it to him: "There was a discussion, but it was about a different photograph. About the prince in boxer shorts and a feather boa and not about the prince wearing a bikini."
Harverson said he told Brooks that if the Sun had a picture of William at a private party it would be in breach of his privacy to publish it. He added: "It was interesting to see they didn't publish the photograph."Harverson said he told Brooks that if the Sun had a picture of William at a private party it would be in breach of his privacy to publish it. He added: "It was interesting to see they didn't publish the photograph."
Laidlaw told the jury the "underwear" photograph was never published by the Sun, but was published by the Sunday People in 2011.Laidlaw told the jury the "underwear" photograph was never published by the Sun, but was published by the Sunday People in 2011.
Detective inspector David Kennett, from the Metropolitan police's Operation Elevden investigation into alleged illegal payments by journalists to public officials, was asked by Laidlaw if he had ever considered whether the email request for money that Brooks approved might have related to three individuals rather than two – and that a third individual might have been involved.Detective inspector David Kennett, from the Metropolitan police's Operation Elevden investigation into alleged illegal payments by journalists to public officials, was asked by Laidlaw if he had ever considered whether the email request for money that Brooks approved might have related to three individuals rather than two – and that a third individual might have been involved.
He replied he had not.He replied he had not.
The court was also told Brooks repeatedly approved payment requests from a Sun journalist for his "number one military contact" who was a Ministry of Defence official when she was editor of the paper. Brooks allegedly authorised the payments after the requests were emailed to her.
The journalist did not name the official in the emails. The jury was told the money was paid to Bettina Jordan-Barber, an MoD employee.
Sums of between £500 and £4,500 were made for exclusive stories which the reporter described as "massively picked up" and "good value for money", it was alleged.
The prosecution claimed the payments were made through a Thomas Cook branch.
The court was told of a string of emails between the reporter and Brooks. One request allegedly sent to her for authorisation, and which was shown to the jury, read: "Morning boss, I wonder if you could please approve the following payments for my number one military contact which are paid via Thomas Cook. Your email okaying them is all the paperwork necessary."
The email included reference to three stories and the amounts £3,000, £1,000 and £500. The court was told Brooks replied "of course".
Another email from the journalist detailing a story asked if it was "alright to pay the contact £3,000" for "a belting exclusive". Brooks allegedly replied "brilliant scoop", adding "of course on payments", the court was told.
The case continues.The case continues.
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@theguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@theguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.