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.

Is everyone going to pretend everything the KC says to Harry is somehow damaging 'ouch' 'cringe' etc because if so, this thread is not aiming to be anything but a thread to attack Harry. No real desire to view the case objectively.

@kirinm

the KC is drawing out contradictions in his testimony - I’d say that’s damaging no?

It sounds like Harry will be sermonising from the dock

The Telegraph:

Mr Green asks about the statement: “How much more blood will stain their typing fingers before someone will put a stop to this madness,” which the Duke wrote, referring to journalists.
“Who has blood on their hands?” Mr Green asked.
The Duke says: “Some of the editors and journalists who are responsible for some of the pain and sadness and inadvertently death.”
He adds that the statement was written “more broadly towards the tabloid press itself” than any particular people in the media.

‘Green says Harry is essentially after recompense for general press intrusion rather than specific articles.’

ouch!

Current line seems to be how closely his distress needs to be connected with the specific articles he has chosen, and how directly the distress needs to apply to him - i.e. if he was affected by his mother's distress does that 'count' legally

@AutumnCrow And there they found me, looking at the Reader's Digest in a desultory fashion. 😂😂😂😂

I thought he no longer had the right to use HRH?

How are they contradictions? You know it's a lawyers job to comment on everything contained in a witness statement right?

Not every point is a slam dunk. 🙄

Harry’s witness statement makes him appear like such a pompous knob.

Howsimplywonderful

lol, yeah it is coming across as cringe 😬

If the problem is general press intrusion, how much can these specific 147 articles be held responsible for his distress?

King Charles commented on the governments Rawanda policy. I hope everyone posted their shock faces for that extraordinary intervention in UK politics given that he's, you know, the actual king.

You don't need a 'slam dunk' moment, you just need to discredit the evidence offered by the witness throughout their evidence.

Maybe cos he is?

@kirinm because he said he couldn’t remember reading them and then also said they caused him distress.

the KC seems to be foundling down on this - linking (or not) distress to specific articles chosen.

Don’t mistake me - if there is evidence of hacking then Harry absolutely deserves to win - certainly the press are and have been immoral, unethical, you name it - they deserve NO pity. But that does not mean they broke any laws, no matter how wrong it may feel.

Harry has to prove that illegal activity took place.

If he wasn’t consciously aware of the articles his lawyers have chosen at the time, then the defence could argue that he couldn’t have possibly been distressed by something he was unaware of.

So once you cast doubt on that part, it leaves the door open for the defence lawyer to cast doubt on other sections also. That’s how legal defence/prosecution arguments work.

He could lose simply on a technicality or use of careless language. He MUST be specific and precise to win.

Not even discredit, surely?

It is believable that he has (and does) find the level of press coverage and intrusion in his life distressing. That doesn't necessarily mean these specific press articles are responsible for his distress - surely?

I am not a lawyer, but would have thought that the more he talks about other press intrusion and its effect on him, the more he creates a question about whether the articles that are the subject of this case have had such a profound impact?

The Telegraph has published his 55 page witness statement in full - it's riddled throughout with references to Chelsy.

I think the poster who suggested he's still bitter about her breaking up with him may be right.

Yes, no slam dunk needed.

rather questioning to reveal unreliability and thus call into question the credence of witness

Mr Green, representing MGN, has asked the Duke “how he became hugely paranoid” if he didn’t read the articles.

“Many of the articles I did read,” the Duke says, adding: “The vast majority were attributed to a pal, a friend, a source, an onlooker, which actually creates more suspicion about where the articles come from.”

Witness statement is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23835120-bl-2019-001787-hrh-the-duke-of-sussex-v-mgn-witness-statement-of-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex

Claimant skeleton argument is here: https://thomsonheath.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Claimants-Skeleton-Argument-for-Trial-Various-v-MGN-MNHL-4-May-2023.pdf

Both long but quite useful for making sense of the snippets that come out of court.

I do appreciate your guidance. My 15 years of litigation experience in the high court means I'm lacking the requisite knowledge to I defy and how litigation works and how claims or defences succeed. The test is the balance of probabilities. You appear to be applying a criminal test.

OF COURSE it's the defences job to challenge his evidence. They're not going to sit down and agree it.

I'm guessing you're on ROF.

I thought he wasn’t to use HRH anymore?

what has changed?

@mixedrecycling Yes as @Rinoachicken says, you can't be vague and nebulous in giving evidence. It must be precisely targeted at what was said and done and the evidence you have to support it.

I wonder if Harry knows it has no legs if he carries on like this, and he just wants his day in court to point the finger at the press, and to move his campaign to restrict free speech forward? Expensive and I think it will backfire.