The Daily Mirror publisher Mirror Group Newspapers has been accused of making a “cynical and calculated decision” to call Paul Gascoigne to testify at the high court phone-hacking trial.
The newspaper group exacerbated the former England footballer’s health problems by making him attend court only to then refuse to question him, according to Gascoigne’s barrister David Sherborne.
Giving evidence at the high court in London last week, Gascoigne said that phone-hacking had driven him to severe paranoia and to consider suicide. He said: “I’d like to trade my mobile in for a coffin because those guys have ruined my life.”
He then grew visibly angry when he was told by Matthew Nicklin QC, the publisher’s counsel, that it would be “inappropriate” to cross-examine him. The decision meant that there was no legal reason for Gascoigne, who suffers health problems associated with years of alcoholism, to have attended court.
Shaking his head before angrily walking out of the courtroom, Gascoigne said: “I’ve waited 15 years to be sat here. I’m disgusted, really. Fifteen years.”
He gave evidence at the civil trial brought by eight phone-hacking victims, including the actors Sadie Frost and EastEnders star Shane Richie, for compensation over widespread voicemail interception at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the People.
Making a closing speech on Thursday, Sherborne said the judge, Mr Justice Mann, should consider awarding Gascoigne aggravated damages for the distress of being needlessly brought to court. “It was extremely difficult for Mr Gascoigne to come to court, and his courage in doing so led to MGN electing not to cross-examine him,” he said.
Sherborne said: “The court will have its own view as to whether this was a cynical and calculated decision on the part of MGN to require a witness to attend, in the hope that they would not be in a position to attend, and thereby enable them to make the obvious submissions that would follow from the non-attendance of a claimant.
“The health issues suffered by Mr Gascoigne over the course of this litigation are well-known.”
However, Nicklin, for MGN, told the judge that the decision not to cross-examine Gascoigne was “well-intentioned and designed to avoid further suffering”.
Nicklin said: “It appeared to the legal representatives of the defendant that Mr Gascoigne was not fit to be questioned and that the process of giving evidence might well be detrimental to him.
“Given the admission that Mr Gascoigne had been wronged by the defendant, any cross-examination risked making a bad situation worse. It is hoped that the court will recognise that [MGN’s] decision was well-intentioned and designed to avoid further suffering.”
Sherborne has asked the judge to award each of the claimants a sum of damages for each article based on phone-hacking, plus a general figure of compensation for voicemail interceptions that took place even when no article was published.
The judge has been asked to award the victims a further sum of damages for misuse of private information in relation to details obtained about them by private investigators working for MGN.
Sherborne described the civil hearing as “unparalleled”, adding: “Never before has a court had to deal with this systematic and widespread conspiracy over three national newspapers of teams of journalists.”