PH lost bid to challenge for right to pay Home Office for his security

[Mumsnut]

I've probably garbled that, but that's the gist of it.

A P36 offer can be made at any time including during a trial or just before. During wouldn't make much sense though.

If an offer is rejected and the offer isn't beaten in court - i.e. court awards less, than the party offering will be entitled to their costs from the date the offer would have expired - 21 days after being made. And potentially on an indemnity basis - meaning arguments over reasonableness might not be considered by the court.

Harry would be entitled to all costs up to that date.

I should caveat 'all costs' by saying all costs that are either agreed with the other party or assesses by the court.

Whether Harry has to stump up the remainder of whatever the court doesn't order the other side to pay totally depends on what funding arrangements are in place.

I wonder if Harry has any intention of settling. Lots of people want their day in court and most of the time, the lawyers are the ones trying to persuade them not to. Given how much Harry seems to hate the press, I'd half guess he just wants to see the press be found liable regardless of the cost.

Either way, it doesn't look as though it makes financial sense, but morally he is on a crusade, so I think the financial outcome (if it is a win) even if ultimately he is out of pocket, will be worth it. Personally the strain of our current court case is horrendous, so I can't imagine how stressful his are. 🙁

xpost, but yes indeed. He's brave to be doing this

Is that in the Sir Humphrey sense of "brave"?

I've googled it and yes, you're right!
Sir Humphrey Appleby's way of saying ''Do not go there for that way lies almost certain political death''.

I guess this thread is also one for the media court cases?

Anyway in a week Harry goes into the witness box as the first royal ever to do so! This time it won't be a friendly Oprah or tom Bradby, but a Rottweiler of a defence barrister. I actually feel sorry for him.

... in a week Harry goes into the witness box as the first royal ever to do so!

I still can't bring myself to believe it'll actually happen

Of course we could all get a surprise if he does well, but I honestly don't know how any member of the RF would cope with incisive questions from a professional, especially if it involves his "curated memories having just as much truth as so-called objective facts"

Anyway in a week Harry goes into the witness box as the first royal ever to do so!

He's not the first in the witness box - Edward VII when Prince of Wales went in twice as a witness - first he may well have lied in court under oath - it was a divorce case and very sad what happened to the woman and then later he gave evidence in a slander case.

I think Harry's "first" is to be a witness and a claimant rather than just a witness.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/02/monarchy.claredyer

wonder if there’s a livestream? I think the Telegraph will
report ‘live’.

I think anyone would struggle when being questioned. Even other lawyers.

I really hope he's thought this through and has been fully prepared.

I think anyone would struggle when being questioned. Even other lawyers
I really hope he's thought this through and has been fully prepared

Completely agree, MrsF; I'd only add that not everyone's offered the hostages to fortune which Harry has, nor made so many silly remarks which could well come back to bite him

I especially agree about preparation, but have to wonder just how much notice will be taken of the "little people" who are there to advise. Paying attention to what they'd rather not hear isn't a noticeable trait among several of the RF, and that's if anyone with such a message even gets anywhere near them

Anyway time will tell; I just hope it's livestreamed somewhere other than the Telegraph because I don't have a subscription!!

Do we televise in English courts? I'm sure there will be tons of verbatim reports though. Unless there are reporting restrictions? It's very complicated.

Not trials, just sentencing remarks at the conclusion of criminal trials

I don't see why he'll have any problems. It's always nerve-racking giving evidence but the barrister will stay on topic. As long as he takes his time and thinks about what he's saying rather than goes off on a rant, he'll be OK. I know people talk about barristers tripping you up but it's always much more boring than that.

Yes... up to a point. But will he stay on message?

From what I remember (could be wrong) there was the point in the OW 'interview' where he came in and the topic of the 'concern' about Archie's skin colour came up. He started in to - seemingly - explain the details and Meghan put her hand on his arm, and he went silent. Presumably the details did not meet the required narrative.

Will he (can he?) think in sufficient detail before he speaks?

At the last phone hacking trial, the judge had to intervene to stop the cross-examination by the KC as he was being so utterly unpleasant to the claimants. The KC was made to apologise.

Fun fact: the offending KC from that case has since become a High Court Judge, and is in fact the judge hearing the phone hacking case against ANL.

I would be absolutely terrified of being cross examined by a barrister.

I used to give evidence in court and its always nerve-racking. But if you tell the truth, you're OK. It's not fast rat-a-tat questioning. Of course the barrister and his team are looking for a weakness in your evidence, and for Harry his memory of events is where they'll go after him, I should think, but if you're honest with what you do and don't know and are consistent, it's OK. I never came across eagle eyed sharp shooters who could pull you to bits. Although when you're out of the box, you do go over it in your mind how you could have done or said things better. Lol. I think everyone's like that. Harry will be fine.

I wouldn't, because I don't have any interest in any possible case.

My DF was a witness in a murder trial (verdict manslaughter) completely unrelated to his activities (man was murdered outside a bar he had a drink in). He told me about the accused lawyers cross examination, which was designed to trip him up i.e. ' so you recognised the victim' - DF 'no, I had never seen him before' etc

He just told the truth, and all the snares to catch him as liar didn't work because his automatic response was the truth. He wasn't trying to hide anything.

I think Harry is loving the fact that his family will hate him appearing to give evidence in court. Anything to wind them up .

(DF) just told the truth, and all the snares to catch him as liar didn't work because his automatic response was the truth

Same here, mixedrecycling (a fraud in my case) but in light of his self-described attitude to objective truth is Harry capable of that?

Past form would suggest not, but time will tell

Even if he appears badly? If so, it makes him appear an unreliable witness for his accusations about his family, even though they are legally separate. If I was part of the family who was criticised I would be hoping he appears in the witness box and messes up.

He just told the truth, and all the snares to catch him as liar didn't work because his automatic response was the truth. He wasn't trying to hide anything.

Based on what’s already come out about the case though, their defence is largely that the stories that Harry maintains could only have come from hacking his phone were in fact sourced elsewhere. I imagine in cross-examination they will be looking to get him to concede that that is possible. Harry is unlikely to want to concede that. That kind of opposed position often leads to witnesses getting would up, and wound up people often say unwise things.