I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy, just emphasising the evident truth that day 2 and onwards of a hearing get far less publicity than day 1 when the prosecution plays its hand.
Was the adjournment reported by the media or were you able to trace it via court channels (or journo's bush telegraph)?
Searching for Claudia Webbe adjournment turns up a report in the Islington Gazette but not much else.
Can't recall where I read it, might have been in The Standard.
As a general point, the problem with multi-day trials is the proceeding days can be rather samey, with the same things being said as day one, just by different people.
No hard and fast rules, but the classic way to cover a trial is do the opening, then do the opening of the defence case, especially if the defendant gives evidence, then do the result.
I will always try to get a defence line in the opening story, but that's only possible if the jury is told one.
Routinely, the prosecutor will finish his opening with something like 'when arrested, the defendant claimed...', although if it's a no comment interview it can be difficult to legally work in a defence line.
In Webbe's case, the trial moved swiftly so the day one stories included the defence line about the MP making contact with the victim because she was concerned about a Covid breach.
Thus the day one stories were balanced, but they can only be a reflection of what was heard in court that day.
With some high profile cases, the newsdesks will want every dot and comma, even though much of it will still be repetitious.
In such a case, I may have to resort to doing the closing speeches and summing up by the judge, which will not see the light of day in reports of most trials.
