Grifters indeed! Can we have a lift Joe?

[ThePoshUns]

H&M asked if they could have a lift home on AF1 after HMQs funeral.
Environmentally friendly sure, but makes them look grabby and entitled again. Makes for a good story though.

Agreed. So saying 'Omid Scobie' didn't deny it so it must be true is silly

Not quite. It went considerably further than that - the judge noted that it was very likely Meghan was briefing Omid directly with details she wanted made public.

The judge stated that there was evidence suggesting that Meghan’s side ‘have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset’.

He then referred to tweets from Omid Scobie which contained extracts of the Meghan’s witness statement. The judge stated that it was ‘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’, adding “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”.

I’d be interested to see any actual evidence that Omid Scobie is no longer a key part of Meghan’s press/PR team, because I can’t say I’ve seen any.

Tbh I think if H thought it was ok to ask Bob Iger for a job for his wife, while conducting royal duties, embarrassingly putting the man right on the spot with all eyes on him, I don’t think it’s in the realms of impossible that he might ask for a lift back to the US with The Bidens.

I’d be interested to see any actual evidence that Omid Scobie is a key part of Meghan’s press/PR team, because I can’t say I’ve seen any.

Works both ways. And very convenient for those that dislike H&M to say.. Omid didn't deny it. Must be true.

I’d be interested to see any actual evidence that Omid Scobie is a key part of Meghan’s press/PR team, because I can’t say I’ve seen any.

I literally just posted a High Court judge’s conclusions on the matter above, Roussette! Tough crowd… 🤣

I'm not stupid, I obviously read your post because I repeated it. I was asking for proof of a continued liaison between them both after that court case, which was after all, 18 months ago, and I said it was a very convenient tool to use him as a reason every single stupid story published that is not denied by him, is true.

Tough tits 😂

I suspect Omid Scobie may recently have been relegated to the outer reaches of the solar system by M&H…. But, as he was previously very close to the couple and Markus Anderson, I don’t think they can afford to dump him completely. He must know a lot of stuff and needs to earn a living…

@LadyMuckingabout Yeah...seeing as a judge talked about clear briefing to him by MM its not unreasonable to expect him to have discussed a variety of topics with them. He's said too much, too often to be just another reporter.

So the judge drew an inference that OS received the witness statement from representatives of Meghan.

He did not say there was "actual evidence" that this was the case. .

Great to see you acknowledge the point in my post on a previous page, which is that judges are able to draw inferences (including adverse inferences) from circumstantial evidence, in the absence of the kind of "actual evidence" as you call it, that you were saying was missing from Harry's case.

Wasn't it Omid Scobie who released a statement saying M&H had not received any contact from TRF to check they were ok, following the incident in NY? How else would he have known that other than from M&H themselves? I think I will draw an inference from that evidence.

Great user name @Ridemeginger

Great to see you acknowledge the point in my post on a previous page, which is that judges are able to draw inferences (including adverse inferences) from circumstantial evidence, in the absence of the kind of "actual evidence" as you call it, that you were saying was missing from Harry's case.

You are very keen for me to respond to you, aren’t you? As you wish. Warning: my thoughts are long. I’ll split them up! 😀

Firstly, as Harry has brought this claim against the Mirror, it’s his fundamental obligation to prove his own case- ie.e establish to the satisfaction of the judge that each individual article he alleged was written as a result of the Mirror hacking his phone, it is more likely than not that he is correct.

There are several different types of evidence a claimant can rely on. Let’s look at them here.

What direct evidence does Prince Harry have of phone hacking? None, frankly. His own testimony, while pointing at stories about him, could not identify a single instance that definitely came from his phone being hacked. When asked about a lack of evidence to prove illegal information-gathering, Harry even replied: “I think that is a question for my legal team”.

Next, what secondary evidence does Harry have? There was only one invoice to a PI that related to him, and he could not link it to any story. He had no phone data, and gave us a consistently repeated refrain around there being no evidence because the Mirror used “burner phones” and “destroyed evidence”. This does not hold up.

As set out at length in the Leveson Report, the striking thing about the phone hacking was that the phone hackers used absolutely no precautions at all because they were completely oblivious to the fact that the mobile phone companies could provide data about how often voicemail systems were accessed via the remote dial-in service (the mobile phone companies didn’t realise this at first, either!).

Prior to the existence of the criminal cases, no-one had realised that historic data showing how often the hackers had dialled the target’s mobile number existed or could be accessed. So prior to say, being charitable here, 2007-2008, there was absolutely no need for burner phones or any other kind of subterfuge because they it literally never occurred to the hackers that they could be traced. Also, the phone data comes from the mobile network providers, not the hackers. There is no way that the Mirror could arrange for BT/Orange’s etc data to be deleted.

So, he has no phone data and personally I don’t believe his argument for this stands up. If he had been hacked, there should have been phone data for claims earlier than 200 8 (his case ran from 1996 to 2011).

What circumstantial evidence does he have? Well, here I think his case is actually the weakest. You will try and rely on circumstantial evidence to establish that although you don’t have direct evidence, there is no other way that the relevant circumstances could have occurred. But in this case the Mirror was able to establish (in relation to I think every single article but one?) that Harry relied on that there was another, public, source for the story, and not hacking a voicemail. That’s not helpful to him at all.

A category you didn’t mention, and which actually be more helpful to Harry is what similar fact evidence he has? We know he was hacked by the NOTW nine times. That is not probation of the Mirror hacking him though - they are completely different organisations. If the Judge finds that other claimants were definitely hacked by the Mirror, he may well be more inclined to decide maybe Harry was too.

So I think that in this case it is more likely than not that Harry’ has not proved his case. This came out in the closings. The judge said to Harry’s barrister: "Give me your best two examples of particular evidence that Prince Harry was able to give of a particular message." The barrister couldn’t - he had to go back to saying how Harry was sure that certain topics were only discussed privately.

I also noted that the barrister made a last ditch effort to introduce some evidence 10 days after evidence had closed, and give the judge a letter as part of his closing statements. That’s very unusual, and not normally something you’d do unless you felt your case was pretty shakey (the judge refused to read it though, saying "I cannot entertain this at this late stage. I will not read the letter and I will not admit it as evidence.").

All this doesn’t mean Harry won’t succeed though - Judges come up with surprising decisions all the time! It’s a big risk, however, and if he does he’ll face a personal liability for likely more than a million pounds of costs for the Mirror, not to mention paying his own legal team. And even if he wins on only one article,I would expect the Mirror have taken steps to ensure that he’s still at risk of having to pay most of their costs.

Cheers,@ThePoshUns I probably need to change it, as I thought it was an amusing name when Spare came out, but not quite so amusing when poor Sasha had to out herself. However, there was a particular loon on these boards who used to rant about name changers as if they were a branch of the KGB, so I didn't change it in the end (and don't post much on this board anyway).

@serenster, you have the patience of a saint 😂

For my sins, I do love a good media law trial. I was all over Leveson and the criminal prosecutions when they were happening :))

Thank you for that detail, @Serenster . I didn't know any of that.

@Serenster Your posts are really excellent. Thank you (from a former litigator).

Yes I snorted the first time I saw it 😂

Great posts laying out the rules of evidence.

But I disagree with this conclusion:

What circumstantial evidence does he have? Well, here I think his case is actually the weakest. You will try and rely on circumstantial evidence to establish that although you don’t have direct evidence, there is no other way that the relevant circumstances could have occurred. But in this case the Mirror was able to establish (in relation to I think every single article but one?) that Harry relied on that there was another, public, source for the story, and not hacking a voicemail. That’s not helpful to him at all.

I think this is where his case is strongest. The journalist who testified unwillingly was not a convincing witness, and was unable tp explain the sources in a number of stories. I found it striking that with respect to one particular story, she claimed the source to be Piers Morgan, who has, as we know, refused to testify in this case.

My memory is that there were also a number of invoices to a known hacker that were linked to the stories, and she could not explain what the invoices related to. There was some incredulity, as I recall, that she appeared to have expressed no curiosity at all about what these invoices related to.

I found the question from the judge about why the journalists were not testifying to be particularly interesting, especially as related to Piers Morgan. And this is where Harry's often repeated response of "you have to ask the journalists" is helpful: he was asking the judge to draw adverse inferences from the fact that they chose not to testify, and the one who did so did so under protest. If indeed, everything on all the stories was above board, why would they not have testified. That they didn't is as relevant as the fact that the one who did testify not only testified under protest, but contradicted her own witness statement.

Yes, you are right that the burden of proof is with Harry to establish a prima facie case. But if he can succeed in showing that just one or two of the stories could not have been from the sources claimed by the defence, he will, on a balance of probabilities succeed in his claim.

So briefing sympathetic media ≠ being a spokesperson.

But that’s not what he said is it? He said that they briefed sympathetic press not that they were their spokespeople.

The list of journalists who were cited in the action but failed to turn up is even longer than I remember!!

Of 29 journalists, only one testified under protest.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65962048

@Serenster I think I have probably said before but no harm in saying again, I find your posts are always a very interesting and informative read, thank you👍 🍷