THE case against former News of the World editor Andy Coulson was neither "rigorous, open-minded or fair", the hacking trial has been told.
A number of "gaps in the evidence" in the prosecution against Coulson were highlighted by his lawyer in his closing speech at the Old Bailey.
Among them was the failure by police to fingerprint members of the royal household to check if one of their number, and not unidentified police officers, was the source of royal directories sold to the NotW, jurors were told.
The prosecution also kept evidence of the extent of former royal editor Clive Goodman's phone hacking from the jury, leaving it to the defence to expose it for the first time, the court heard.
Coulson, 46, is on trial accused of conspiring to hack phones and conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office by agreeing with Goodman to pay for two royal phone books.
His lawyer Timothy Langdale QC, told jurors: "Operation Weeting commenced in January 2011 as a high profile investigation and attracting a high degree of public interest and media scrutiny.
"It must have been important that it would be a rigorous investigation.
"We suggest as far as Mr Coulson is concerned it has been none of those things -rigorous, open-minded or fair.
"Case theories have changed at a moment's notice once they have been exposed as impossible.
"Criticisms of the police investigation have been brushed aside for blame to be cast elsewhere, often in News International's direction.
"It's almost as if the juggernaut must keep moving."
Mr Langdale told jurors that it was their responsibility to "do what the investigation so often failed to do - which is scrutinise, analyse, and come to a fair conclusion".
Coulson, 46, of Charing, Kent, along with six co-defendants denies the charges against him.
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