ENCROCHAT HACK: When Huyton Firm top dog Vincent Coggins pleaded guilty to drugs conspiracy and blackmail ahead of trial

FOLLOWING the conviction of Edward Jarvis today Essex News and Investigations can report on when Vincent Coggins earlier went guilty ahead of the trial that first tried to challenge the admissibility of the EncroChat data - in a case known as Sub Zero:

A MAN charged under the Encrochat investigation has pleaded guilty to three charges ahead of the trial.

Vincent Coggins, 57, (above) from The Spinney, Stockbridge Village, admitted the offences at Manchester Crown Court on Wednesday, November 24 2021 - it can only now be reported.

He admitted that between March 1 2020 and the June 17 2020, to conspiring together and with Dean Borrows, Paul Fitzsimmons, Darren Tierney, Paul Glynn and others to supply a controlled drug of Class A, namely cocaine to another.

He also pleaded guilty to between March 1 2020 and June 17 2020 conspiring together and with Kevin Rimmer, Darren Tierney, Dean Borrows, and others to supply a controlled drug of Class A, namely diamorphine to another.

The third charge Coggins admitted is that between the May 22 2020 and the June 17 2020, he conspired

with others to make unwarranted demands with menaces.

Coggins submitted a basis of plea document that was accepted by the prosecution.

Coggins, who used the EncroChat handle "Moonlitboat", was later jailed for 28 years for the offences.

His enforcer, Paul Woodford, pleaded guilty to the same charges and was later jailed for 24 years and six months.

Three conspiracy to murder charges that Coggins and Woodford faced were left to lie on file by the prosecution.

The Encrochat investigation happened after Dutch and French law enforcement managed to hack into the encrypted Encrochat mobile phone system in April 2020.

They allowed access to British police forces to historic and live messaging being sent on the devices used by around 9,000 people in the UK.

There have been a number of legal challenges around admissibility of the evidence as live interception of phone calls in the UK is not usually admissible.