Rebekah Brooks’ husband Charlie has lost his bid to recover the £600,000 in legal fees he incurred as a result of being a co-defendant in the phone-hacking trial.
Mr Justice Saunders ruled he was “satisfied that the defendants’ conduct brought suspicion on themselves and misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against them was stronger than it was”.
Brooks, a racehorse trainer, was acquitted along with his wife and Kuttner in June after a marathon eight-month trial.
In a statement Charlie Brooks said: “At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner the bookmakers pay you.”
“I am quite satisfied that Mr Brooks brought suspicion on himself and others,” said the judge.
The trial jury heard that Brooks had decided not to answer questions during his police interview on advice from his lawyers. Judge Saunders said solicitors frequently give this advice, but noted that they “do not know the truth”. He went on to note: “Mr Brooks knew that he was entirely innocent."
So there you have it: if you are fingered by the police, go to court and lose, you pay your legal costs and that of the government. If, however, you are entirely innocent but the government forces are "suspicious" - to quote the judge - when you win, you still cannot recover your costs from the government.
Mr Brooker, it would seem, "aroused suspicion" by taking advantage of his right to remain silent and thus requiring the police to make any case against him.
Bent or what?