British PM David Cameron rues giving hacking editor Andy Coulson a spin

DAVID Cameron must explain why he hired Andy Coulson and then took “a criminal into the heart of Downing Street”, the UK opposition has said.

(FILES) In this file picture taken on April 14, 2014 former News of the World editor and Downing Street communications chief Andy Coulson leaves the phone-hacking trial at the Old Bailey court in London. Former Rupert Murdoch confidante Rebekah Brooks was cleared of all charges while British Prime Minister David Cameron's one-time media chief Andy Coulson was convicted of phone hacking in a dramatic end to the News of the World trial on June 24, 2014. AFP PHOTO / LEON NEAL

DAVID Cameron must explain why he hired Andy Coulson and then took “a criminal into the heart of Downing Street”, Ed Miliband said yesterday.

Mr Cameron had promised a “profound” apology if his former spin doctor was convicted of phone hacking. In the event, his statement of regret was caveated by a claim that there had been no complaints against Coulson while he worked as the Tories’ director of communications.

In a brief television interview after the verdict Mr Cameron said that he took “full responsibility” for employing Coulson.

“I am extremely sorry that I employed him,” the prime minister said.

“It was the wrong decision.”

Mr Cameron had stood by employing Coulson for four years since the hacking scandal first arose. Coulson was found guilty yesterday, and now faces jail. Co-accused former editor Rebekah Brooks was cleared of all charges.

Mr Cameron’s comments were echoed by George Osborne, the chancellor, who approached Coulson a few months after he had resigned from the News of the World when a reporter was convicted of hacking.

“We gave him a second chance but, knowing what we now know, it’s clear that we made the wrong decision,” Mr Osborne said.

However, Mr Miliband said that Mr Cameron had “very serious questions to answer”.

He added: “David Cameron was warned about Andy Coulson, the evidence mounted up against Mr Coulson — David Cameron must have had his suspicions and yet he refused to act.

“This isn’t just a serious error of judgment, it taints David Cameron’s government because he put his relationship with Rupert Murdoch ahead of doing the right thing.

“This is not some small or accidental mistake. He stuck with Andy Coulson over a long period of time.

“He was warned by the deputy prime minister, he saw stories in newspapers, he was warned by newspaper editors and yet still he refused to act and even today he is defending some of the conduct of Andy Coulson.

“When the Conservatives announced they had hired Coulson in June 2007 they boasted they had secured the services of a “formidable” talent. The circumstances of his availability — a resignation after the conviction of a reporter for phone-hacking — were lightly glossed in the press release.”

Coulson, a footnote recorded, had given assurances that he had not known about the activities of Clive Goodman. During the Leveson inquiry, Mr Osborne said that he raised Coulson’s name as a candidate with Mr Cameron in early 2007. As shadow chancellor, Mr Osborne invited the ex-editor for a drink three months after his departure. Mr Osborne says that he asked if there was “anything more on phone hacking that we should know”. Coulson, he says, said “no”.

Mr Cameron told the Leveson inquiry that he raised the question of hacking in a meeting in his Commons office with Coulson before his appointment. He said that Francis Maude, now a cabinet office minister, and Ed Llewellyn, his chief of staff, had also grilled him and that a background check had been carried out.

The prime minister has said that he again asked questions about his press chief’s knowledge of hacking after revelations in The Guardian that it was far more widespread on the News of the World than had been admitted. He wanted reassurance that Coulson would repeat his denials in public before a parliamentary committee in 2009.

“The test I set is there new information that shows that the undertakings I was given were wrong? I didn’t see evidence that the undertakings I was given were wrong,” the prime minister told the Leveson inquiry. Critics will claim that Mr Cameron was set on holding on to his press chief and that aides rebuffed several warnings by MPs and a Buckingham Palace emissary.

Mr Cameron will also be questioned over his decision not to expose Coulson to “developed vetting” interrogation by security services when, despite warnings, the new prime minister took him into the heart of government.

Mr Llewellyn’s decision to reject the offer of a briefing from the Metropolitan police on their investigation in the wake of new revelations about the scale of hacking at the The New York Times will also come under renewed scrutiny.

The trial heard that others close to Mr Cameron were briefed by Rebekah Brooks on the finer details of hacking. The technique was discussed at Chequers party in 2010.

The acquittal of Ms Brooks poses a dilemma for Mr Cameron, who must now choose whether to resume his friendship with the former newspaper editor and her husband, Charlie Brooks, also cleared, who is part of Mr Cameron’s circle. In an interview in December 2012 Mr Brooks said: “I was a little disappointed when he commented in Parliament on whether Rebekah should resign or not because I didn’t really feel he had all the facts at his fingertips. When this is all over, I’m sure he will explain ... I don’t feel any anger towards him at all.”

The Times