This article is from the source 'independent' 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.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-trial-andy-coulson-admits-he-knew-that-david-blunketts-phone-had-been-hacked-9265273.html

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

Version 0 Version 1
Hacking trial: Andy Coulson admits he knew that David Blunkett's phone had been hacked Hacking trial: Andy Coulson admits he knew that David Blunkett's phone had been hacked
(35 minutes later)
Andy Coulson knew details of the private life of the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, published in the News of the World in 2004, had been obtained from hacked phone voicemails, the jury at the hacking trial has heard.Andy Coulson knew details of the private life of the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, published in the News of the World in 2004, had been obtained from hacked phone voicemails, the jury at the hacking trial has heard.
The former News International editor told the court that in 2004 he was contacted by the paper’s then chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, and told of information, obtained from voicemails which revealed a three-year affair between Mr Blunkett and the former publisher of the Spectator magazine, Kimberley Quinn.The former News International editor told the court that in 2004 he was contacted by the paper’s then chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, and told of information, obtained from voicemails which revealed a three-year affair between Mr Blunkett and the former publisher of the Spectator magazine, Kimberley Quinn.
Mr Coulson said he was initially “shocked” and angry about what he was being told, asking Thurlbeck: “what on earth are you doing?”.Mr Coulson said he was initially “shocked” and angry about what he was being told, asking Thurlbeck: “what on earth are you doing?”.
Mr Blunkett, he told the jury, was regarded as a “friend” of the paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and ordered the Thurlbeck-led investigation to stop. He added that he regarded the examination of voicemails “a breach of privacy”.Mr Blunkett, he told the jury, was regarded as a “friend” of the paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and ordered the Thurlbeck-led investigation to stop. He added that he regarded the examination of voicemails “a breach of privacy”.
However later appeals from Thurlbeck forced a rethink after he argued that the story and investigation was justified on the grounds of public interest, and that a home secretary may have been “distracted” from his job by the publisher of a Tory-leaning publication. However later appeals from Thurlbeck forced a rethink after he argued that the story and investigation was justified on the grounds of public interest, and that a home secretary may have been “distracted” from his job by the publisher of a Tory-leaning publication. 
Asked by his defence counsel, Timothy Langdale QC, about whether or not he had enquired where or how the voicemails had been acquired, Mr Coulson said he assumed “Neville [Thurlbeck] had done this himself. It was all coming from Neville.”Asked by his defence counsel, Timothy Langdale QC, about whether or not he had enquired where or how the voicemails had been acquired, Mr Coulson said he assumed “Neville [Thurlbeck] had done this himself. It was all coming from Neville.”
Mr Langale asked Mr Coulson if the voicemails were played to him by Thurlbeck. “Yes, he did,” replied Mr Coulson, adding that he remembered some of the voicemails detailing a “declaration of love” by Mr Blunkett, along with a threat to make the relationship public.Mr Langale asked Mr Coulson if the voicemails were played to him by Thurlbeck. “Yes, he did,” replied Mr Coulson, adding that he remembered some of the voicemails detailing a “declaration of love” by Mr Blunkett, along with a threat to make the relationship public.
“This was the first and only time voicemails were played to me,” Mr Coulson told the court.“This was the first and only time voicemails were played to me,” Mr Coulson told the court.
The contents of the Blunkett voicemails, were, said Mr Coulson, discussed with a News International executive, and with a lawyer. The lawyer, he said, had not examined the issue of illegality surrounding how the voicemails were obtained. The concern was Mr Blunkett’s privacy, the court was told.The contents of the Blunkett voicemails, were, said Mr Coulson, discussed with a News International executive, and with a lawyer. The lawyer, he said, had not examined the issue of illegality surrounding how the voicemails were obtained. The concern was Mr Blunkett’s privacy, the court was told.
Following a rethink of his earlier order to halt the Blunkett investigation, Mr Coulson told the court that he decided he needed to stand up the story. This involved travelling to Mr Blunkett’s Sheffield constituency home and putting the allegations of the affair directly to him in a face-to-face interview.Following a rethink of his earlier order to halt the Blunkett investigation, Mr Coulson told the court that he decided he needed to stand up the story. This involved travelling to Mr Blunkett’s Sheffield constituency home and putting the allegations of the affair directly to him in a face-to-face interview.
The background of the allegations and how they were acquired from a voicemail were not put to Mr Blunkett, Mr Coulson told the court. He said that although he had initially planned to reveal the voicemail access, he had changed his mind to minimise the risk of legal action against the NOTW. In retrospect, he told the court, this decision was “a mistake.”The background of the allegations and how they were acquired from a voicemail were not put to Mr Blunkett, Mr Coulson told the court. He said that although he had initially planned to reveal the voicemail access, he had changed his mind to minimise the risk of legal action against the NOTW. In retrospect, he told the court, this decision was “a mistake.”
The 2004 article on the Blunkett affair did not mention Mrs Quinn [then Kimberley Fortier].The 2004 article on the Blunkett affair did not mention Mrs Quinn [then Kimberley Fortier].
However the Sun, the following day, did name her.However the Sun, the following day, did name her.
The court was told of text and calls between Mr Coulson and Mrs Brooks that took place after the NOTW story appeared. Mr Coulson said there was no deal between himself and Mrs Brooks on the Blunkett-Quinn story.The court was told of text and calls between Mr Coulson and Mrs Brooks that took place after the NOTW story appeared. Mr Coulson said there was no deal between himself and Mrs Brooks on the Blunkett-Quinn story.
The jury has previously heard from Mr Coulson that he had only learned of his newspaper’s involvement in phone hacking after the 2006 arrests of the former NOTW royal editor, Clive Goodman, and Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator regularly commissioned by the paper. Both men were jailed on hacking related charges in 2007.
Earlier in the trail’s proceedings the jury were told that Thurlbeck had pleaded guilty to hacking-related charges.Earlier in the trail’s proceedings the jury were told that Thurlbeck had pleaded guilty to hacking-related charges.
Mr Coulson, Mrs Brooks and five other are defendants in the trial. They are charged variously with conspiring to hack phones, bribe public officials and pervert the course of justice. All the charges are denied.Mr Coulson, Mrs Brooks and five other are defendants in the trial. They are charged variously with conspiring to hack phones, bribe public officials and pervert the course of justice. All the charges are denied.
The trial continues.The trial continues.