Sun journalist subjected to trial on ‘contrived charge’, court hears
|
Version 0 of 1. A policeman who sought money from the Sun for a tip about a child being bitten by a fox was “a thoroughly reprehensible man” and a “disgrace to the police force”, a jury has been told. But the journalist who opened James Bowes’ email has been subjected to a criminal trial on the back of a “contrived charge”, his counsel said in a closing speech at the Old Bailey on Tuesday. William Harbage QC, who is defending Vince Soodin, told the jury that the Sun reporter had been “disarmingly open and frank” about the email and had even mentioned that the “tipster” was a policeman when he sent a memo to his bosses. “He had not lied about his contact with Mr Bowes,” Harbage said, telling the jury there was no evidence that Soodin knew Bowes was committing a crime or that Soodin intended him to commit a crime. He said it was wrong of the prosecution to claim that Soodin had “cultivated” Bowes when the contact was unsolicited and did not continue beyond June and July 2010. During the trial, the jury heard how Bowes had in June 2010 emailed a generic Sun account promoted in the paper and advertising that it paid for stories. “Mr Soodin was simply doing his job as a journalist,” said Harbage. He told the jury that Soodin and Bowes had different motivations – the police officer’s was financial, the journalist’s to get a story about a subject of public interest in the paper. Harbage said Soodin had treated Bowes like any other tipster and had ended up, two years later, being charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. “It’s a somewhat contrived charge. Mr Soodin cannot commit the offence of misconduct in public office because he is not in a public office,” Harbage said. He reminded the jury that Bowes already pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office, a “substantive” offence but not conspiracy to commit offence. “James Bowes as a police officer behaved appallingly; a throughouly reprehensible man, he was a disgrace to the police force, nothing I say can be taken as condoning of what Sergeant Bowes did,” Harbage said. “It was wrong and it was appalling, but Mr Soodin is not in the same position.” He was merely a “jobbing reporter” and one who could not have known how Bowes was getting his information – whether it was during the course of his duties or not. Harbage said it was “curious” that Bowes had been charged with the offence of “misconduct in public office” and Soodin was charged with a “conspiracy”. He urged the jury to return a not guilty verdict on the issue of law, saying there was no agreement between Bowes and Soodin involving the commission of a crime. “There has got to be an agreement, there has got to be a meeting of minds between Bowes and Mr Soodin. If person A thinks they are agreeing to one thing and person B thinks he is agreeing to something else, there is not a meeting of minds, there is not a conspiracy.” The trial continues. |