Andy Coulson's justification for exposing David Blunkett's affair in the News of the World, because he let slip to his married lover there had been a terror arrest, was dismissed in the hacking trial as an "invention".
The former editor was being questioned in the witness box about a meeting in August 2004, when chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck played him hacked voicemails, including one in which Mr Blunkett declared his love for Spectator publisher Kimberly Fortier.
Coulson told jurors that the then home secretary sharing "sensitive" information about terrorism and his visits to GCHQ convinced him there was a public interest in pursuing the story based on hacking.
But the Old Bailey heard the resulting story never contained reference to either. Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC asked the witness: "If it's something the public ought to know why didn't you tell them?"
Coulson said: "I made a mistake." Mr Edis went on: "This public interest stuff is just an invention by you built around the voicemails.
"If the terrorism arrest had mattered to you in the slightest it would have been somewhere in this story but it's not is it? Where is it in this story?" Coulson replied: "My mistake. I took the decision to follow a different path in the story."
He said if he had run the terrorism line, it would have led to calls for the home secretary to resign and "I chose not to do that".
Mr Edis asserted: "What you thought was, this is a cracking story."
Coulson replied: "I certainly thought it was a story and something I had to give proper and serious thought to."
The court heard that around the time Coulson went to Sheffield to confront Mr Blunkett about the affair, he exchanged texts and phone calls with his on-off lover Rebekah Brooks, who was Sun editor at the time. But he denied telling her what he was doing.
He said: "There was closeness between Rebekah and I that the court has heard about but that did not extend to the sharing of each other's exclusives. There was a clear line drawn."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article