The royals and Dan Wootton: Byline Times part 1 of 3-year investigation into how Wootton got information about the royal family

[queentim]

Following their series about the Crisis in British Journalism and MediaToo movement, Byline Times reporters have recently released the first report of the 3 year investigation into the link between the royals and (disgraced) TV presenter Dan Wootton.

The first report reveals how Charles and William were angered that Harry refused to remove the name of an aide (William's aide in Kensington) who was paid cash to leak stories about his wife Meghan, and son Archie. This included investigations by the Met.

As a result, Charles removed the $700,000 granted to support them, which would have seen Harry and Meghan living in Canada and representing the Queen, in an effort to bring them back to the UK by exposing their location in Canada and removing their security. This was the collapse of the 'Sandringham Agreement', which resulted in the signing of the Sussexes media deals.

Some highlights, but can be bought for £3.6:

▪ It followed news that a partner of a key aide to Prince William received £4,000 from The Sun allegedly for stories about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when Wootton was executive editor.

▪ The Metropolitan Police looked into the alleged leaking but could not go to a judge for a warrant to search royal staff property without knowing the identity of the whistle-blowers.

▪ Two internal royal investigations followed – one involving Simon Case, who is today the embattled head of the civil service facing questions over the Government’s response to the pandemic.

▪ Byline Times has uncovered new photographic evidence of Wootton, the aide and the aide’s partner at a lavish private birthday party Wootton threw for his close friends in a £1,675-a-night hotel suite.

▪ Prince Harry sent formal ‘letters before action’ detailing the claims about Wootton and the palace to News UK.

▪ When the aide’s name was not removed from the legal letters, the Sussexes were cut adrift financially and left unable to protect themselves despite having a security threat level equal to the monarch.

▪ The royal household had thought the threat of exposure would force Harry and Meghan to return to the UK, where their profile could be controlled preventing them from eclipsing the future King

Exploding ‘Megxit’: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-for-Leaks Scandal Split the Monarchy

I'm not sure I've followed all of this correctly, but wasn't their only defence that it was out of time, and that it had already been dealt with by the level on enquiry?

The newspapers are doing what a lot of big organisations do when covering up- using big money and trying to obfuscate and delay and bullshit, and hope the victims lose patience or die or are pressurised into moving on with their lives.

(In the meantime, they are no doubt frantically stalking Baroness Lawrence and her family seeing if they can get some personal vulnerability, or something unpleasant to blackmail her with).

Vile, vile, vile bullies.

@Angrycat2768 Your question is why not being shouted down for explaining the legal position (as opposed to the sensationalist headline) is important.

This trial was not a substantial trial of phone tapping etc allegations. ANL have not filed a defence to the claim form. They haven’t even acknowledged service of it, which would kick off the usual court timetable. Instead, this “mini trial” is a trial of preliminary issues, both technical - 2 counts. First, a summary judgment on the matter of limitation - not a “defence” as such, but an important legal mechanism restricting claims being brought far after the events; second, that the claim form should not be made public because it’s contents and the claims are built upon evidence from Leveson, and such evidence are subject to a Final Restriction Order , and as such cannot be used by the claimants.

ANL have failed on the first bit, ie there is no fatal argument on Limitation. However, that is not to say that at a full trial, ANL would fail on limitation if they produce the evidence of knowledge and timelines required. However, not enough evidence was put before the court in this preliminary trial to kill the claim on limitation. Hence, the limitation argument will not prevent the claims advancing to a full trial. That’s the headline grabbing bit of news.

However, ANL have succeeded on the Leveson FRO point, and this potentially a big blow for the claimants, depending on how much of the claimants’ particulars of claim (which are not public information) are based on the Leveson documents (which cannot be used in litigation under the FRO). To carry on with their claims, the claimant needs to get the FRO lifted or varied. The court does not have jurisdiction to lift the FRO - that power lies with the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. My personal opinion is that this will be unlikely to be granted from a public interest point of view (because it might make witnesses in future inquiries reluctant to provide evidence and be candid in public inquiries, if this will then be used against them at a later date).

Without lifting or varying the FRO, the claimants are reduced to whatever parts of their claims that aren’t based on evidence that falls within the Leveson FRO. Or they can beg ANL to give voluntary disclosure of that info so they can keep those claims going (not likely to happen).

So what’s left is a bit of a pyrrhic victory for the claimants, I think. Success on limitation (so they can proceed to full trial) but possibly the bulk of their claim that would form the basis of that trial being barred from being used under the FRO. As their Particulars of Claim aren’t public, it’s hard to tell if there’s enough there to go for a full trial.

Anyway, there’s a further hearing on 21 November, so it might become clearer what the parties’ intentions will be at that point. I’m pretty sure ANL will be requiring the claimants to file amended particulars of claim taking out anything that came from Leveson; the Claimants will probably want time to make a decision/get advice whether to apply to lift the FRO or proceed without the Leveson evidence. I doubt anything will be going to a full trial anytime soon.

Your question is why not being shouted down for explaining the legal position (as opposed to the sensationalist headline) is important.

Nobody was shouting you down for explaining something that was already clear. Its was the way you spoke to other posters.

The only thing that we know for sure today is, this can proceed to a full trial and that ANL's request for a strike out on the grounds it was not brought in time, was not granted. Thats all anyone was posting about. ANL have always denied being involved in anything like this.

depending on how much .... So what’s left is a bit of a pyrrhic victory for the claimants, I think.

You've made a long post on something we don't know anything about yet.

And you know this how?

You've made a long post on something we don't know anything about yet.

Well, we do know from Harry’s trial against the Mirror that he had no actual evidence of hacking against that newspaper - his claim was all based on his assumptions. Hopefully he has more evidence against ANL, given he now can’t rely on the Leveson material. (In all honesty though I expect they will appeal that ruling - it is likely to be fairly important to them).

But yes, I am pleased for the claimants - having your claim struck out at the very outset is always gutting!

And you are popping the champagne cork for something that might not happen.

And the “way I speak to other posters” was not rude, and even if it was, please stop policing other people and their turn of phrase (particularly when it is not aimed at anyone in particular). If you have a problem, then report it to the moderators. I think my posts today will probably have been a lot more helpful to readers trying to understand what’s going on than most.

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar absolutely nothing wrong with the tone of your posts, I certainly didn't think you came across as rude . I find law interesting and your posts were informative so thank you.

And you are popping the champagne cork for something that might not happen.

But it did happen! Why are you insisting to anyone else what they were happy about? this hearing earlier in the year was discussed here. What was and is good news, no matter how you're trying to frame it, is that ANL's attempt to have it thrown out at this stage for being too late, was denied. Everything else you're saying is irrelevant right now. Clearly your interpretations are biased. You really don't need to get so upset other people are happy about this judgement.

How is everything else I am saying irrelevant? How is it irrelevant that there has been a ruling that (potentially) large chunks or (potentially) the entirety of your claim can’t proceed to trial, even if the limitation period isn’t a bar? The hearing was not solely on limitation. You can’t just ignore the other part (well you can if you want to, but imo it would be foolish to do so).

It is interesting to read your posts @Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar as I haven’t a clue how it all works. Thank you

Thank you, that’s very kind of you to say. I would really recommend reading the judgment. Mr Justice Nicklin is always very thorough and very fair.

"10TH NOVEMBER 2023

Press Statement: Judgment in relation to Various Claimants vs. Associated Newspapers Limited
BY CALLUM GALBRAITH

Statement on behalf of Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE; Sir Elton John and David Furnish; Elizabeth Hurley; Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex; Sadie Frost; and Sir Simon Hughes:

“We are delighted with today’s decision which allows our claims over serious criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy by the Mail titles to proceed to trial.

The High Court has dismissed “without difficulty” the attempt by Associated Newspapers (publisher of The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and the Mail Online) to throw these cases out. Indeed, the Judge found that each of our claims had a real prospect of showing there was concealment of unlawful acts by the Mail titles and that this could not have been discovered until recently. Our claims can now proceed to trial.

As we have maintained since the outset, we bring our claims over the deplorable and illegal activities which took place over many years, including private investigators being hired to place secretly listening devices inside our cars and homes, the tapping of our phone calls, corrupt payments to police for inside information, and the illegal accessing of our medical information from hospitals and financial information from banks. We intend to uncover the truth at trial and hold those responsible at Associated Newspapers fully accountable.

The Judge also found ledgers showing secret payments by The Mail and The Mail on Sunday to private investigators which had been provided to our lawyers and could not be used at this stage without the consent of the newspapers or the Government. This only delays the inevitable since they will have to be produced in the course of the claim by Associated in any event. However, if The Mail and The Mail on Sunday have nothing to hide, and they genuinely believe our allegations are unfounded, as they appear to claim, they should provide us with the ledgers voluntarily now, and let the claims proceed to trial as quickly as possible.”

The judgment is available here."

Good for them! I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar I have just finished reading a summary but will certainly dig into the judgement itself later this evening.

The Judge has been fair (I think) in letting it go to (potentially) a full trial but with the Leveson caveat, which will be restrictive. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

Bump for@queentim

Expect the mainstream media will be claiming its about rich money hungry celebs complaining.

However, these people taking the flak and "pushing a judgement through" will mean less wealthy people illegally targeted by the media can start getting justice.

The legal fees they pay may be more than the compensation, but they'll open the floodgates.

Indeed a Pyhrric victory if, like the power hungry sleazy media barons, all you think about is money and self-advancement.

(Did Paul Dacre ever get the peerage or Master of Oxford college job he was trying to network his way to? I thought his mate Boris Johnson promised him one).

Byline Times? Dan Wooton? Another successful deflection 👏

What was and is good news, no matter how you're trying to frame it, is that ANL's attempt to have it thrown out at this stage for being too late, was denied.

Yes, correct. It is 100% good news for the Claimants. But that defence has not been completely denied. The newspaper will still be free to argue it again at the full trial.

Thanks for that. Good to read

Every lawyer or claimant worth their salt knows that in litigation, things don’t always go as planned. That’s why people pay lawyers the big bucks: to beat whatever odds they start with, and WIN. Or perhaps I’ve been watching Suits for too long? (or have spent too much time in court?)…

Anyhow, it feels perhaps a tad premature to be writing death rites for Harry and the other claimants cases, with gleeful-sounding predictions that they’ll never reach a full trial, they’ll lose etc etc.

Those of us who are keen for certain segments of the British media (ANL, of Daily Mail fame) to receive a long overdue PASTING can genuinely rejoice in today’s result… without paying too much attention to the nattering nays of negativity emanating from some, perhaps a sign of their palpable disappointment that ‘Harry’s case’ (as it is to many) wasn’t peremptorily thrown out of court. Clearly, for some that would’ve been yet more evidence of what a total d*ckhead he is - pause for a second to imagine what todays British media headlines, and posts here, would have been like had the case been thrown out!!

Whatever the final outcome, I’d wager that ANL aren’t exactly quaffing champers at this moment in time.

(the folks at Byline Times might be having a laugh, though…)

We’ll take the victories where we get them!

We’ll take the victories where we get them!

Funnily enough, that is every litigator’s mantra…😀

Too true we will !

Having heard some of the evidence from the likes of Nikki Sanderson and others, it's a good result SO FAR

I do hope that posters aren't wanting this to fail because Harry is involved, that would be too mean; think of all the other worthy litigants

I mean, would they be interested in it's failure for any other reason than Harry suing?

(the folks at Byline Times might be having a laugh, though…)

Without a doubt 😂they have their quills at tbe ready!

I was actually thinking of them. I am wondering even if Levenson weren't allowed to be used, ANL would have to explain how they got their stories.

Me thinks some "sources close to the royals" are shaking right now..

I really hope they win.
the press needs to be held to account for the wrong they do. It’s a shame that people’s dislike for Harry is colouring their judgement