RIPA and Neglect
"Basically it says that if you were in charge and didn't know your staff were intercepting communications then you were negligent"
I don't believe that's a fair interpretation of the Act. If it were, someone commits a RIPA offence and their boss, maybe everyone up the chain, is automatically guilty as well.
"is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of-"
That's better, and then it goes on to list who that covers. Did Wade actually fall under any of those categories at the time of any offence, what is the legal definition of "neglect", and can it be proven a RIPA breach was "attributable to any neglect"?
Wade may be a CEO now but was an editor at the time; that doesn't seem to fall under the list of company officials listed, and not least that the "body corporate" may not be found guilty of a RIPA offence anyway. News International will undoubtedly be claiming they committed no offence even if the monkeys on the ground floor did. That could render the whole clause rather moot.
What if Wade claims she said "don't break RIPA", but they did anyhow? Exactly how far does anyone have to go to not be judged negligent?
To take it, as some seem to be doing, that Wade will automatically be convicted when the house of cards falls seems wishful thinking and in contrast to the realities of how criminal guilt is judged.