Harry & Meghan, all welcome (aka positive thread, now renamed!)

[Roussette]

Here we are, let's inform, discuss, share and respect.

somewhat strangely for a defendant, they will want this case to run and run

Given the clickbait they're getting out of it, I'd say their motivation's obvious. Even if they had to make a payout in the end they'll still be laughing all the way to the bank, as will the lawyers

As said elsewhere, nobody really cares about the details in the end - unless a case concerns a really major issue of course, and a scrap over who read what won't count. All that's remembered is that someone made fools of themselves over something that didn't really matter, and all that remains is an impression that they're best avoided

Was reading that Spitting Image is returning with a sweaty PA and H and M . I really really cannot see M finding it funny !

I see the written judgement soundly criticises both sides for using the court case as a springboard for playing out their disputes in the media, and for the "hyperbolic assertions" in witness statements. The courts really don't like their time and processes being hijacked for tactical purposes.

Also of interest, the judge sets out a timeline of how Meghan filed her application for an injunction and then instantly set about publishing it (Sky news rang AN for a comment about it 15 minutes after it was filed at court, when they had done nothing to publicise it), and then 45 minutes later Omid Scobie tweeted about it, with quotes from Meghan's witness statement, which the judge accepts he likely got directly from Meghan's lawyers. So, Omid, tell us again how you're not that close to the Sussexes, and they didn't contribute to your book...?

Wow @Serenster that’s interesting.

Imagine complaining about an invasion of privacy and media coverage then dripping details of the privacy case to the media you couldn’t make it up.

The judges must have seen this so many times before with celebs and media cases.

@Serenster

Also of interest, the judge sets out a timeline of how Meghan filed her application for an injunction and then instantly set about publishing it (Sky news rang AN for a comment about it 15 minutes after it was filed at court, when they had done nothing to publicise it), and then 45 minutes later Omid Scobie tweeted about it, with quotes from Meghan's witness statement, which the judge accepts he likely got directly from Meghan's lawyers. So, Omid, tell us again how you're not that close to the Sussexes, and they didn't contribute to your book...?

If the judge publicly states he believes M divulges her private information to the media knowing it will be published or intending for it to be, whether directly or through friends who are instructed to do so, it will be a huge credibility blow to her and many of her other litigations claims.

That’s very interesting serenster

@Puzzledandpissedoff

somewhat strangely for a defendant, they will want this case to run and run

Given the clickbait they're getting out of it, I'd say their motivation's obvious. Even if they had to make a payout in the end they'll still be laughing all the way to the bank, as will the lawyers

As said elsewhere, nobody really cares about the details in the end - unless a case concerns a really major issue of course, and a scrap over who read what won't count. All that's remembered is that someone made fools of themselves over something that didn't really matter, and all that remains is an impression that they're best avoided

Exactly. Johnny Depp is looking likely to win his claim against The Sun but the damages are comparatively minimal, especially when compared to what the public now knows in detail about him (and Amber Heard).

@Wheresthebeach

I wonder if she realised the level of intrusion into her phone/email etc when she started this mess.

Well she did do all those Suits episodes so is practically a lawyer herself!

Oh yes @alliwantisagoodnightssleep how silly of me !

@Oldbutstillgotit

Was reading that Spitting Image is returning with a sweaty PA and H and M . I really really cannot see M finding it funny !

I saw H&M’s puppets. I don’t think she will be impressed 😐

At least they made her out to be normal (if slightly annoying and over the top) in The Windsors!

Me too! Don't think either of them will be thrilled!

www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/04/spitting-image-to-return-after-24-years-via-britbox

Can't wait!

i always hated that programme.

Ouch this is long but both sides have had their knuckles rapped

It is in this context that the parties’ tit-for-tat criticisms of one another for publicising details of this case in and through the media are of some relevance. Each side has over- stated its case about the conduct of the other. The defendant has not made good, for present purposes, Mr Mathieson’s contention that the “real motivation” of the claimant and her husband is “to afford them an opportunity to wage their own campaign against the press rather than to obtain the remedies at which the proceedings are ostensibly directed”. Nor does the evidence persuade me that the similarly hyperbolic assertions in the claimant’s witness statement are soundly based. It is however tolerably clear that neither side has, so far, been willing to confine the presentation of its case to the courtroom. Both sides have demonstrated an eagerness to play out the merits of their dispute in public, outside the courtroom, and primarily in media reports.

59. This approach to litigation has little to do with enabling public scrutiny of the legal process, or enhancing the due administration of justice. Indeed, in some respects it tends to impede both fairness and transparency. This will be a judge-alone trial, not a trial by jury. But to fight proceedings in court and through litigation PR or sensational reporting at one and the same time is not designed to enhance understanding of the legal process. For a party to file and immediately publicise prejudicial and partisan characterisations of the other’s litigation conduct in the media before a hearing certainly does not assist.

@Madasahattersteaparty1749
Not sure I am clever enough to understand all of that but it sounds like the judge is not happy!

It sounds as though Prince Harry is being dragged into this litigation with the Judge’s comments. What an absolute mess this entire situation is.

@Madasahattersteaparty1749

Ouch this is long but both sides have had their knuckles rapped

It is in this context that the parties’ tit-for-tat criticisms of one another for publicising details of this case in and through the media are of some relevance. Each side has over- stated its case about the conduct of the other. The defendant has not made good, for present purposes, Mr Mathieson’s contention that the “real motivation” of the claimant and her husband is “to afford them an opportunity to wage their own campaign against the press rather than to obtain the remedies at which the proceedings are ostensibly directed”. Nor does the evidence persuade me that the similarly hyperbolic assertions in the claimant’s witness statement are soundly based. It is however tolerably clear that neither side has, so far, been willing to confine the presentation of its case to the courtroom. Both sides have demonstrated an eagerness to play out the merits of their dispute in public, outside the courtroom, and primarily in media reports.

59. This approach to litigation has little to do with enabling public scrutiny of the legal process, or enhancing the due administration of justice. Indeed, in some respects it tends to impede both fairness and transparency. This will be a judge-alone trial, not a trial by jury. But to fight proceedings in court and through litigation PR or sensational reporting at one and the same time is not designed to enhance understanding of the legal process. For a party to file and immediately publicise prejudicial and partisan characterisations of the other’s litigation conduct in the media before a hearing certainly does not assist.

They have indeed.

His detailed comments have settled the matter that at least with respect to this matter H&M are briefing the press. "Litigation PR" and "sensational reporting" - they're at it, at it!

I mean - you'd expect the Mail to be. But her, waging a privacy case - rather less so!!!

It's a dignity free zone.

No - the judge isn’t impressed. Both are using the court and briefing/using the media to score points. He doesn’t like it and it will be interesting to see if AN keep off the subject for a bit. She would do well to stop briefing friends too. Very stupid and it’s not how British courts work. In America it’s do what you want.

Johnny Depp might win but yes damaged goods! Career in tatters.

It's interesting posters think Depp might win. Regardless of what Amber did, she wasn't on trial. Depp seemed to admit he had hurt and shouted at her, thrown items, etc. It will be very disappointing if their violent rows don't count as DV.

@AnneOfQueenSables

It's interesting posters think Depp might win. Regardless of what Amber did, she wasn't on trial. Depp seemed to admit he had hurt and shouted at her, thrown items, etc. It will be very disappointing if their violent rows don't count as DV.

I believe his actions do count as DV but I think the technicality is that he is suing for being known as a wife beater (The Sun’s article claimed this) and that is where the evidence or proof is lacking. So I think he is abusive but not in the terminology “regularly and habitually beats his wife” which is what the court will be looking at - one admittance to accidentally head butting. So yes to being a domestic abuser but no to being a wife beater. I’m not sure the contents of the court hearing are worth the technicality although JD seems obliviously unaware of just how unacceptable and horrendous his behaviour is to most people.

The full judgment is available online HERE.

Paragraphs 27 and 28 are interesting. With regards to the application to keep the 'five names' private:

"At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely.

Indeed, there is evidence to support the defendant’s assertion that the claimant’s side have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset."

I love Spitting Image! I guess I won't be cancelling my britbox subscription after all.

”Indeed, there is evidence to support the defendant’s assertion that the claimant’s side have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset.“

That’s quite damning!

For those who believe otherwise, can I ask whether you will continue to support Meghan’s statements about how the media has treated her if the judge rules the above is true or will you feel the judge has made a mistake?

The judge won’t make a mistake in this. He will be scrupulous.

Meghan is conducting this as if she was in the USA where media use is very different. I think AN are fighting fire with fire. They know she’s briefing friends so they are hitting back. The judge dislikes all of it. We will see if Meghan now employs a dignified silence.