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.

I think there are a lot of conflicting things going on because of the fact those bringing cases don’t help themselves: the appalling, intrusive behaviour of the press pre-Leveson + the targeting of non-celebrities (including victims of crimes) + the attempts of celebrities who are victims of purely gossip-mongering to latch their cases onto murder victims for their own benefit + the conflation of illegal activity (like phone hacking) with completely legal means of the press obtaining information celebrities would rather keep secret + celebrities using their vast wealth to suppress reasonable reporting + the fact the enquiry they wanted has already happened (and NOTW is no more) + opportunism of those bringing cases… there are a lot of conflicting things and I don’t think there is a side to “root” for

I think there are a lot of conflicting things going on because of the fact those bringing cases don’t help themselves: the appalling, intrusive behaviour of the press pre-Leveson + the targeting of non-celebrities (including victims of crimes) + the attempts of celebrities who are victims of purely gossip-mongering to latch their cases onto murder victims for their own benefit + the conflation of illegal activity (like phone hacking) with completely legal means of the press obtaining information celebrities would rather keep secret + celebrities using their vast wealth to suppress reasonable reporting + the fact the enquiry they wanted has already happened (and NOTW is no more) + opportunism of those bringing cases… there are a lot of conflicting things and I don’t think there is a side to “root” for

This is it. Bad behaviour on both sides makes it hard to pick a winner. Neither, or both, really deserve it.

Totally derailing but do they have court room sketch artists at these kind of cases? Wondering if we will see some artist's picture of Harry in the witness box?

@Ohpleeeease I do see your point about the conflicting attitude to Harry. I flip flop between feeling terribly sorry for him and the mess he's got himself into, and wishing he is ripped to shreds in the same way he allowed his family to be ripped to shreds. The whole thing is such a mess and as these are very much historic cases of phone hacking etc, I would say campaign for better governance of the press, rather than trying to tie their hands and repress such stories such as Rolf Harris.

If someone is liable to implicate themselves or get tripped up, then they will not appear as a witness for/against.

This is Harry’s claim though. He has to give evidence or it will likely automatically fail.

I agree he will have been extensively coached (technically that’s not allowed, but… 👀). And cross examination can be way less dramatic than people who’ve only seen it in fiction think. Still, people get cross/emotional/stressed when facing tough questions quite a lot. It’s not something I’d experience (and it is something I’ve experienced personally) if I didn’t have to.

Harry could have settled. He chose this course. I hope for his sake it goes well.

Is it true, @Serenster , that the barrister on the plaintiffs side can't speak to the witnesses? I used to be involved in prosecutions - but they were criminal, I think, I was just a named prosecutory body - and the barrister was not allowed to talk to us about our evidence. Is that just in criminal cases? Not in civil suits? Out of interest can defence barristers discuss their statements with their witnesses?
And, no, I never coached anyone nor was ever coached either. Lol.at the thought. I just used to tell my witnesses, read your statement and answer honestly. Honestly, going to court can be a crap shoot sometimes. In Harry's favour, the newspapers have a history of guilt and I think most people will believe him. If the case goes ahead, I'd think it remarkable if he lost.

Which barrister are you referring to? Each barrister can speak to their client but won't get an opportunity to 'speak' to the other sides witnesses until cross examination. They will have seen their statements though.

Any barrister - claimant or defendant - can speak to their clients or their clients witnesses about their statements. No doubt the barrister will have seen the statement before it was even signed.

There is no 'property' in a witness meaning neither side can prevent that witness speaking to the other side. But, I've been doing litigation for 15 years and haven't ever had a witness go off and chat to the opposition. Have had witnesses suddenly ghost me / disappear in to thin air though.

I didn't work for the police but I did work for a named prosecutory body and most cases were heard and settled in the magistrates court with a solicitor.

Some cases were appealed and went to the crown court where we had to have a barrister. I would turn up to give evidence along with any witnesses I had. The barristers wouldn't talk to me, other than for admin type things like timings, the judge, etc, and said they couldn't discuss any of my evidence, and I guess was their client, or that of any other witness for the prosecution.

I assume a defence barrister can speak to their client, but they can they speak to the other defence witnesses about their statements?

But, I've been doing litigation for 15 years and haven't ever had a witness go off and chat to the opposition.

I have! It was a very, erm, interesting trial. First time I’ve ever seen a witness (not mine, thankfully!) tell the judge that could literally tear pages out of their statement while giving evidence in chief after a previous witness (the side-switcher) had completely exposed them.🤣

@Haywirecity the rules for barristers in the UK prohibit rehearsing, practising with or coaching a witness. Solicitors often do, however, in my experience.

@Haywirecity in civil cases, yes. They wouldn't ordinarily speak to them directly (everything would go via the solicitor) but they would probably have at least one meeting with them in person ahead of a trial. Really depends on the case.

In the type of work I do, it is often the value of a claim that determines how involved a barrister will be. Some will be involved from very early days and long before litigation starts. If they're involved that early, they'll likely meet the client and witnesses early too.

Does anyone really want to see Harry annihilated in the witness box?

I think he'll manage that feat all on his entitled, never-before-crossed own but straight up?

I wouldn't mind but then again I'm happy with anything showing any royal in a less than flattering light.

All grist to the mill of getting rid of the lot.

I really think the tabloid press are scummy in so many ways but I do struggle with freedom of the press versus stopping harassment of individuals. I think that this case is so concentrated on Harry that the actual principle is slightly being lost.

I think that this case is so concentrated on Harry that the actual principle is slightly being lost

And also, that the complaints are about historical behaviour, previously exposed and vilified, and resulting in prosecutions and the closure of the News of the World.

Everyone keeps going on about current and recent media behaviour but this is not what these cases are about and the results of these cases will make no difference at all to current rules and standards.

Isn’t Harry’s greatest difficulty the fact that - in one trial at least - he has to convince the judge that he had no idea the phone-hacking was goi g on , despite the fact that his brother was effectively unearthing the whole scandal? Or his claim would be time-barred

i think that he will, rightly, be pressed very hard on this.

because two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, the tabloids should be held to
account for what has been done in the past, but by fair means. The Court must be sure that Harry’s famously poor memory is correct on this point.

Was Hugh Grant's limitation issue dealt with a long time before Harry's? I've not followed it but just wondering how long the court took to hand down the judgment on that one / when the judgment for Harry's will happen.

Isn’t Harry’s greatest difficulty the fact that - in one trial at least - he has to convince the judge that he had no idea the phone-hacking was goi g on , despite the fact that his brother was effectively unearthing the whole scandal? Or his claim would be time-barred

I've no legal knowledge, but as you say "when he knew about it" is linked to whether the case has been brought too late or not, and surely that will already have been addressed? After all Hugh Grant's phone hacking claim's been judged out of time, so since Harry's appears to be going ahead I'd have thought that means it's somehow been okayed?

I thought there was goi g to be a mini-hearing about it later this year. But I freely admit there’s so much going on I can’t keep it all straight

Could be, Mumsnut - when it comes to the legal nitty gritty I've no idea, but I'd honestly have thought the issue of whether a claim's valid would be sorted out before the hearing, or frankly what's the point?

Harry raised an estoppel argument during the limitation hearing, NGN said that they would need more time to respond. So there is another hearing due in July to hear that issue. We won't have a decision on limitation as a summary judgment issue in Harry's case until after that. Hugh's case didn't have anything outstanding arguments to hear, hence the judgment in his limitation hearing already being available.

Hugh didn't win on his limitation argument for unlawful information gathering, the judge decided the arguments about it needed to be thrashed out fully at trial. The limitation arguments for phone hacking and publishing of the articles were simple enough for those claims to be dismissed at this stage.

Is the July hearing lawyers only, not witnesses, Dolma? So we won’t hear Harry explain why he didn’t twig the phone hacking earlier?

There will be witness statements, but no cross examination of the witnesses. Same as the last hearing.

I offer you this little gem from the last day in court as reported by Sky News blog:

There's a brief moment before we exit the court as legal counsel discuss with the judge how the royal should be addressed in court.
They initially appear to opt for "your grace" followed by "sir" - before agreeing to settle on a final decision before he begins his testimony.

Hadn’t thought about forms of address but I suppose they have to decide on one. Surely the judge won’t be expected to address H as “your Grace”, or indeed “Sir”?

Why does Harry need to be there at all then?