Employer Funding in Criminal and Civil Cases

An interesting snippet of evidence emerged from the Hacking trial yesterday according to the Inforrm blog.

You have to think about what is worse – her doing a deal with Max which will be perceived as a cover up or indemnifying Mulcaire so that he won’t say anything about NGN. He could say anything and he could say anybody – Chapman said it would certainly be difficult to prove that he was just making up names. Brooks said it would terrible if seen to be ‘buying off’ Max.”

According to the Inforrm blog, the meeting took place in January 2010, between News International chief executive Mrs Brooks, legal chief Jonathan Chapman, NoW lawyer Tom Crone and Julian Pike from the law firm Farrers.  Indemnification refers, it seems, to indemnifying Muclaire for costs he might incur in any civil proceedings which attempted to force him to reveal who instructed him on hacking jobs.

I have written previously about the risks involved in employer funding criminal litigation (as well as earlier here when Roy Greenslade suggested journalists felt compromised by their funding).

Advertisements

About Richard Moorhead

Director of the Centre for Ethics and Law and Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at the Faculty of Laws, University College London with an interest in teaching and research on the legal ethics, the professions, legal aid, access to justice and the courts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s