Most stories sold to News of the World by ex-soldier ‘just tittle tattle’, court told

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/18/stories-news-of-the-worldy-ex-soldier-public-interest

Version 0 of 1.

Stories sold to the News of the World by a then serving Household Cavalry soldier were simply tittle tattle, rumours and Facebook postings, the Old Bailey has heard.

Some, if not the majority, of the scoops sold by former Lance Corporal Paul Brunt to the now defunct newspaper did not even breach army protocol, jurors were told.

Brunt was paid £9,450 by the News of the World for a string of stories in 2006 and 2007, but few impinged army law, jurors were told.

He is on trial with News of the World reporter Ryan Sabey, who allegedly paid £1,500 in cash to Brunt for a story about about the soldier going to war in Iraq.

He later paid Brunt, who served in the same regiment as Prince Harry, £750 in the Newmarket pub in Kentish Town, London, for another story, the court heard.

In his closing speech, Brunt’s counsel told jurors that one of the stories ‘Soldier’s Tragedy: Death of a Tragedy’, which told of a soldier who died fighting, allegedly, because of faulty equipment.

“Mr Brunt was angry when he was telling Mr Sabey this – angry that a lack of equipment had caused his death,” George Carter-Stephenson QC, said.

“This is something the public has a right to know about, so there is a public interest in this story. There is no breach of army protocol”

Closing for Sabey, Orlando Pownall QC, said there were effectively five articles written by him relating to the information derived from Brunt.

“Each, we suggest, was in the public interest, albeit he was given other ‘rubbish tittle tattle … it was not in any articles.”

Pownall also cited the article about the young soldier dying because of faulty equipment and said all five stories the crown placed at the centre of his case were in the public interest.

He said Sabey had not denied being involved in the payments and that thesy had been signed off by his bosses at the time.

He told jurors that “no journalists are above the law” but that Sabey was “far from, if there ever was one, the stereotypical Grub Street hack”.

“He was then 25 years of age, when he was first asked to make contact with Paul Brunt

“Everyone at the newspaper knew that his tipster was a serving soldier and his news editor and managing editor sanctioned payments. None of them even hinted that what he was doing was wrong.”

Pownall asked jurors to set aside any prejudices they may have about the News of the World, acknowledging that some of them may have been readers of the paper, and some may not.

“In reaching your verdict, you will reach it without fear or favour, it will be reached dispassionately whether you approve of chequebook journalism or not,” said Pownall.

Referring to Sabey’s faltering appearance in the witness box, Pownall said this should not be taken as a sign of guilt.

He asked them did they not feel “a slight tremor” when they heard their names called to serve on this jury in the historic Old Bailey and to consider that Sabey’s evidence was in “artificial circumstances”.

“There may be some prurient pleasure , something mildly satsfying about seeing a journalist who spends their time being critical of others, sometimes praising, being put through their his paces in the witness box,” Pownall said.

“There were times you might have felt he was like rabbit caught in the headlights, stuck in his answers [he] couldn’t even answer me, his own counsel.

“That his evidence was scrutinised with care is perfectly proper; that he fluffed his lines and that he was repeatedly asked the question does not mean by any measure that he is guilty,” he added.

He also asked the jury to consider if what Brunt had done was so severe to amount to an abuse of trust “so severe to cause criminal proceedings”.

Carter-Stephenson said there was “no doubt” that Brunt had provided information, and occasionally photographs to the News of the World and the Sun newspapers and that he had received payments.

But, he said: “The paramount questions for you, are whether he obtained the photos or the information by reason of his public office.

“In other words, in his official capacity, as a lance corporal in the Household Cavalry.

“Was his passing of that information to Mr Sabey willful misconduct?

“And was this misconduct so serious so as to basically amount to an abuse of the public trust in him as the holder of that public office?”

He described the provenance of Brunt’s stories as tittle tattle, chat that may have gone on in the mess office, speculation, rumours and Facebook postings.

There are many sources to the stories along with those from the internet, all which “find their way in some shape or form into the article”.

He said one of the stories sold by Brunt, headlined Klu Klux Klot, concerned racism.

He said many, including child pornography being found in the possession of soldiers, did not relate to army business, rather events that occurred at military barracks while a story about an army rape was “not army business.” The article also appeared in the Evening Standard and was already in the public domain.

Referring to another story headlined ‘Harry’s Quilty Secret,’ he said of its contents: “This is nonsense, rubbish, laughable.”

“Yet The Sun are prepared to pay a lot of money for this story – and this is supposed to be wilful misconduct by Mr Brunt?” said Mr Carter-Stephenson.

He said it was “hardly a state secret” that the Sun reported Prince Harry smoked his final cigarette in ‘Harry Smokes Last Ciggy.’

Brunt denies two counts of misconduct in public office.

Sabey denies one count of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.