Part 2: The Press & The Royals a discussion

[Whaeanui]

Following on from this thread: Part 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4786923-the-press-the-royals-a-discussion?page=1

As we know, the press often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. They have also hacked private communications, with cases ongoing. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch-although not always.

For discussion: do we think it is possible for the royal family to stay relevant and in the publics mind without their unhealthy relationship with the media, and how can they achieve that? How will previous and current legal proceedings alter the relationship?
Please do not intentionally derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular family members or if they deserve it. I would really like to continue this discussion on how the royal family and the press interact, as above.

No worries!

This is the ink I've been following: https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-trial-live-former-sunday-mirror-journalist-to-give-evidence-at-prince-harry-hacking-trial-12881275

Link

Thank you after searching I just found the same one 😂 I have too many windows open and I should be concentrating on what I’m meant to be doing! Thank you though :)

Omid Scobie from yesterday:

Oohhh, the burn from Omid's last question.

What did that lawyer answer?

Someone tried to make it like O&H were some kind of friends because they met at an RR drinks do. In which case he is other royals friend too then. Surely, OS was just another reporter face. Not sure he even knew his name.

What did that lawyer answer?

I wasn’t in court so don’t know for sure, but a bland “Answer the question please Mr Scobie” is the normal response from either Counsel or the Judge when a witness starts trying to grandstand.

Omid didn’t mention that he’d provided a couple of witness statements for the Duchess of Sussex in her claim against ANL did he? Or that he was such a central member of her litigation team that he was forwarded court documents to be tweeted about less than an hour after they were filed? He clearly wants to paint himself as having no real affiliation with the Prince Harry here, but it looks a bit misleading even for those of us who have just seen the interactions that have been out in the open.

I thought it was known that JK was the go between? ... Hence Harrys email (‘We’ve got to be able to say we had nothing to do with it’)?

So did I, PicturesOfDogs, and let's face it the silly claim that H&M had nothing to do with Scobie's ridiculous book was busted ages ago

Sadly it doesn't stop the mental gymnastics, and I've since read that they "didn't even know who he was", which is odd for someeone Harry's had drinks with and who claims to have done the same with many other senior royals (as if )

Amusing to watch his squirm on the hook he's crafter for himself though ...

From the telegraph:

'Meanwhile, in the Duke's separate phone hacking case, his barrister was rebuked by a High Court judge after requesting to submit a 10th statement from a convicted hacker at the last minute.
'David Sherbourne, who is leading Prince Harry's case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror over alleged phone hacking, was admonished for the "totally inappropriate" handling of a new witness statement from Graham Johnson, one of the claimants' witnesses who is the former investigations editor of the Sunday Mirror and pleaded guilty to phone hacking in 2014.
'Two months after the deadline for submitting evidence, the Duke's lawyers attempted to add nine more pages, running to 44 paragraphs, into Mr Johnson's evidence.
'Mr Justice Fancourt told them "we really cannot carry on this way, to carry out this trial efficiently, with this sort of thing going on".'

Also happening today is Harry's appeal against the dismissal of his RAVEC case (I hope I've got that right).

@Mumsnut yes you got that right, thanks for adding updates.

"Two months after the deadline for submitting evidence, the Duke's lawyers attempted to add nine more pages, running to 44 paragraphs, into Mr Johnson's evidence"
"Mr Justice Fancourt told them "we really cannot carry on this way, to carry out this trial efficiently, with this sort of thing going on"

I don't begin to understand this, since the lawyers must surely know the rules about submitting evidence - what the hell's the point in doing that kind of thing, with the risk of antagonising the judge??

He's already antagonised the judge by late submitting a big document statement without having the courts permission to submit it. Said document contradicted the earlier statement of H, so that didn't go down well.

Re the lawyers/barrister...end of the day they have to do what the client says even if they advise to the contrary.

I believe the ghost author of spare had similar issues with having to put stuff in that wasn't advisable, or at least was against his advise

Omid scobie denying he has anything other than a tenuous relationship with Harry and Meghan? He and Meghan collaborated on the book Finding Freedom, so that needs taking with a big pinch of salt.

I’m not legally savvy enough to know whether this sort of disarray to a case implies anything about its merits. It certainly seems that they are chucking in everything but the kitchen sink at the moment. Did Harry maybe change his legal representation in the middle of case prep? That might explain why they are so much on the back foot, seemingly

@Mumsnut I don’t think so, he’s got an experienced barrister in court too, we will be getting biased takes on the case wherever it comes from so I’d take it all with a giant pinch of salt. This is just the start so, we’ll see!

When a judge says (and I am assuming it is verbatim) "we really cannot carry on this way, to carry out this trial efficiently, with this sort of thing going on"

He's really saying..get your fucking act together, or I'll throw the whole bloody case out!

Been out of it for 24 hrs with an abscess got antibiotics from dentist this morning and starting to feel a bit more with it. I've lost track of what is happening in court, was the judges rebuke about another statement being submitted today or had that happened before? I've tried to look it up online but either there isn't anything about it or I'm not as with it as I thought and still struggling.

We will be getting biased takes on the case wherever it comes from so I’d take it all with a giant pinch of salt.

Adding 44 new paragraphs into your witness evidence after the trial has already started when you are the claimant and are you are presenting your own case is a clear sign that things are pretty shambolic behind the scenes. Who knows what is causing the shambles - but this is not the sign of a well-organised case.

Thanks again, Serenster; I was hoping you might be around to add some clarity.
In fairness Whaeanui's correct about biased reporting, but the judge's remarks sounded like a direct quote, and if that's so then god only knows what's going on

I'm unclear though (and can't access the Telegraph) ... were these extra paragraphs about the hacking allegations or the RAVEC situation?

The phone hacking

Although I’m equally confused because the article talks about Harry’s permission for the judicial review over how his security was decided being refused in February, and that today Harry’s lawyers are seeking to get this overturned. Did I miss all that?

I was responding to @Mumsnut that’s why I tagged them,
‘I’m not legally savvy enough to know whether this sort of disarray to a case implies anything about its merits.’
This is what my response ‘ we’ll be getting biased takes’ was for.
Whether or not being admonished by a judge for trying it on has any bearing on merits of the case 🤷🏽‍♀️ and I’d take online advice ‘with a giant pinch of salt’.

Im more interested in reading up on what the witnesses actually say.

Former journalist Brian Basham, a witness for Prince Harry and the other claimants, is being cross-examined about the contents of his witness statement.
In particular, he is being asked about his comments on Paul Vickers, Trinity Mirror's company secretary at the time in 2012.
He described Mr Vickers as "unusually powerful" on the board of Trinity Mirror plc, and said he was told by a source that Mr Vickers was the "villain of the piece" when it came to phone hacking at the company.
In the statement, he said he had been told Mr Vickers - along with chief executive Sly Bailey - had "orchestrated a cover-up of Trinity Mirror’s phone hacking".
Andrew Green KC, representing MGN, says Mr Basham had identified a number of people allegedly involved in hacking in a note titled "Trinity Mirror vulnerability to Leveson et al".
"One person it doesn't identify is Mr Vickers, yet you describe him as the villain of the piece," he says.
"Because his villainy was involved in the cover-up, not the execution," Mr Basham replies.
Mr Green asks if Mr Basham is aware of the damage to Mr Vickers' reputation if he is found to be the "villain of the piece".
"Yes, and rightly so," Mr Basham says.

The rest of his appearance is in the link @LivelyBlake shared above.

As an aside have I missed that Harry got told no to buying police protection here when they don’t perceive a credible threat and is appealing this decision.

Or is it just a turn of phrase and nothing’s actually happened of note, and it’s still to come.

Isn't he appealing that now, like today?

I’m generally more interested in the legal submissions and the judge’s comments - you earn a lot more from them generally!

In terms of ongoing cases, as well as the various phone hacking cases, Harry also has two judicial reviews ongoing. The first is into the lawfulness of RAVEC's original conclusion to remove his protection, but he has subsequently sought a second review into its decision not to allow him to fund the security arrangements himself.

You first have to get permission from the court to bring a judicial review claim. Harry was granted permission of 4 of his 5 arguments for the first review in July last year. That will go to a full hearing later this year. Today is the hearing of his application for permission to pursue the second action.

(He’s a busy chap!)

*learn a lot more, thank you autocorrect!