Sun stories about princes William and Harry under scrutiny at Old Bailey
|
Version 0 of 1. The Sun’s linguistic style and editorial values came under sustained attack at the Old Bailey with questions about the public interest justification for stories about Prince Harry and Prince William. Prosecutors quizzed the paper’s chief reporter, John Kay, about stories ranging from reports about Prince Harry’s infected blisters, a Gurkha whose throat was slit at Sandhurst or the death of Prince William’s former army instructor in Afghanistan. Kay is on trial over allegations he unlawfully paid an MoD official Bettina Jordan-Barber for stories over an eight-year period between 2004 and 2012. On his second day in the witness box at the Old Bailey, he was quizzed for two hours about stories, including one he wrote revealing that Prince Harry “was in agony in hospital” after he “got blisters that became infected” in Sandhurst in 2005. “No doubt, lots of cadets get blisters. The only reason this is in here is because this is Prince Harry?” asked prosecutor Michael Parroy. Kay replied that the story “showed he was getting stuck in to his training”. Parroy pressed him again: “If it was] any other cadet with blisters, this story would never have appeared in the paper at all.” “No, no of course not,” replied Kay. The prosecutor put it to Kay that the “any connection with the royal family is something the Sun trades on.” Kay agreed. “Yes, to a certain extent”. “Was that fair?” Parroy asked. “I think it is fair,” replied Kay. “Because the training of Prince William and Prince Harry is of considerable public interest.” Parroy went on to quiz him about language used in stories such as a reference to “furious army top brass”. Kay said this was based on information he had received from the ministry of defence. He was also challenged on the accuracy of the reference in a story to a woman in the “intelligence corp” as a “spy”. “It’s a generic term,” said Kay. At one point Parroy accused Kay of writing “a smutty little story” about two officers “skinny dipping” in Sandhurst. It was headlined: “Harry, this is your captain streaking”. Kay said he believed the story was in the public interest as it concerned the conduct of officers. Turning to the killing of Prince Wiliam’s former instructor, Kay concurred with Parroy that this was “a considerable tragedy”. He was then challenged about an internal email in which he referred to the story about the death as a “belting exclusive splash”. After being quizzed about the language in his email repeatedly, the judge intervened telling Parroy that “the mere fact that it’s tragic, does not mean that it is not a perfectly good story”. A Sun story about a Gurkha being attacked at Sandhurst also came under the spotlight. “Essentially Mr Kay this has nothing to do with Sandhurst at all?” asked Parroy. “A Gurkha having his throat slit and left fighting for his life is a scandal,” Kay replied. Parroy put it to him that it was a “sad domestic incident involving mental illness”. Deadpan throughout the cross-examination, Kay replied: “I can’t think of anything more public interest than that.” “Would it have made a difference if he had not lived at Sandhurst?” asked Parroy. “Yes,” replied Kay. “His connection with Sandhurst is what makes the story, being the world’s most famous military academy.” “So it simply comes down to the Gurkha was at Sandhurst?” “Yes.” “Describing it as a scandal you say is fair? “Definitely.” Earlier Kay agreed that it was important that he, as a journalist, produced balanced and accurate reports. He had also said that reporting on the “sexual pecadilloes” of army personnel was in the public interest as affairs were against the army’s code of social conduct. “To improperly sensationalise them would be dreadful journalism wouldn’t it,” Parroy had put to him. “It would indeed,” said Kay. Kay and two other senior Sun editors, Geoffrey Webster and Fergus Shanahan, are charged with conspiring to cause misconduct in public office. All three deny the charges. The trial continues. |