Mr Le Cornu (59), of Havre des Pas, denied committing the offence on 18 October 2016. He had been accused of telling lawyer Advocate Vicky Milner that he would delete apparently confidential information belonging to Verite Trust Company only if they settled a claim for unpaid wages made by his wife Irina.
However, the charge was dropped by the Law Officers’ Department and police legal adviser Sam Brown told the court that no evidence was being offered when Mr Le Cornu appeared for the start of an expected trial.
Advocate Matthew Jowitt, defending, successfully applied for the prosecution to pay the reasonable costs of the defence.
And after granting the costs application, Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris told Mr Le Cornu that the case against him was dismissed and he was free to go.
Mr Le Cornu was first brought to court on 27 December last year and charged alongside his wife Irina Le Cornu, who was facing three charges relating to alleged breaches of the data protection law in respect of dealings with Verite Trust Company. However, all charges against her were dropped earlier this year.
The former Deputy has always protested his innocence and when he appeared in court in January he said: ‘I don’t understand the course of justice that I have perverted and how I have perverted it.’
The case against Mr Le Cornu centred on a telephone conversation with Advocate Milner, who was representing Verite in respect of alleged breaches of confidentiality. It had been alleged by prosecutors that Mr Le Cornu told the lawyer that the contents of the firm’s emails would be released only if they settled the claim made by his wife to the Employment Tribunal for non-payment of wages.
At a procedural hearing on 11 June the defence unsuccessfully submitted that the contents of the phone call were inadmissible because they represented a ‘without prejudice’ discussion between lawyers about settling litigation.
The defence argued that ‘without prejudice’ discussions could not be used as evidence in court. However, the court heard submissions that an exception to that basic principle was the use of a cloak of ‘without prejudice’ discussions to engage in ‘unambiguous impropriety’, for example to engage in blackmail or commit some other offence.
When commenting on the contents of the telephone conversation, Mr Harris said: ‘If without prejudice, I would not have found any unambiguous impropriety, if indeed any impropriety at all (by Mr Le Cornu).’ He also pointed out that Verite were happy with the response given by Mr Le Cornu, as they did not instigate proceedings.
Having heard the decision of Mr Harris, Advocate Jowitt said to the judge: ‘You have expressed the view that his [Mr Le Cornu’s] behaviour was appropriate.’
