Duke of Sussex court case: key witness statement false

[bluegreygreen]

I looked for another thread on this but didn't see one.

The story is about the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) are bringing against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers) for phone hacking. Back in July the claimants were told to reveal any payments that were made to witnesses in exchange for evidence; this seems more serious.

From what I can gather the main witness (Gavin Burrows) in the case was employed by the claimants' team over a couple of years to help research into the phone hacking by different organisations and to track down relevant people. He says he was asked on several occasions if he had worked for the Daily Mail and always denied it, and the first he knew of the current case was when he heard in 2023 that Baroness Lawrence had brought it based on his evidence.

Apparently Burrows wrote a statement at that time (2023) denying the claims and has now written a more detailed statement also denying the claims.

The claimants now don't want to call him as a witness (unsurprisingly) but do want to rely on (some of) his evidence as 'hearsay evidence'.
They also don't want Associated Newspapers to be allowed to call him as a witness.

Telegraph archive link
https://archive.is/YAjNq

I haven't heard before of 'hearsay evidence' being used like this - does anyone know the rules? How can it be tested?

Yes, yes and yes.

Yes, and waving and smiling at the photogs, bizarre !

I was going to say a similar thing - the video posted up thread when he’s facing away from the camera really shows how bald he is now.

In any other context it wouldn’t matter in the slightest except that he used it as a stick to beat William with so it’s quite funny how he’s desperately trying to cling onto the pretence that he has a full head of hair. He’d look better if he just embraced it and went very short all over like William has, but because I think his hair is one of the things he feels he “beats” William at, he can’t bear to let it go.

The crux of these cases is the claimants' claim that the newspapers deliberately concealed the practices of phone hacking and UIG. So even though the general practice was brought to light back in the late 90s/early 2000s, individual claimants can argue that they only learned about being personally hacked years later, and thus the 6 year limitation period only started running from the point in time of their discovery. There is provision for this in the Limitation Act.

This is why the claimants are talking about stories involving their lives far in the past; and this is why the issue of the Byline Times articles has arisen, because it is alleged these stories were "planted" (in or around 2019) so that the claimants could only just "discover" they had been hacked by the DM way back in the past. This appears to relate in particular to Sadie Frost. Which is an odd thing, because she was the claimant in the seminal case on phone hacking, Gulati & others v MGN heard in 2016, and I believe is the person who has received the highest pay out to date for phone hacking in that case. It seems odd to me that she wouldn't have looked into other newspaper stories about herself back when it was looking like she had been the victim of the Mirror Group.

Just to add to the above, this concealment/new discovery/limitation act issue is why Sherborne has been fishing for other potential victims during this case. More cases can be brought if he can get information from the newspapers during disclosure of documents relating to people other than the claimants in the particular case at hand.

I see a solicitor who was involved with information gathering from Gavin Burrows etc no longer works for the firm and has moved abroad. it’s fascinating stuff.

Liz Hurley and her son heading to court 😆 very ‘blue steel’

For someone who hates the press/media he makes a real effort to smile, wave and pose a bit for pressure photographers. I am sure there are discreet doors he can use to avoid being seen.

Makes a change I guess from him not bothering to turn up, or turning up late and being dressed down if I recall by the judge

The BBC blog actually uses the term "casually strolls" to describe Harry returning to the courtroom. Apparently the press is seated behind behind him. That sounds to me like he isn't concerned about security.

They seem to be going after Rebecca English for a Chelsy Davy incident in 2007. That's 18 years ago.

Also the statement that Sherborne quotes from Burrows, where Burrows says he is going to be honest, is ( in my uneducated opinion) up to interpretation since Burrows has gone into hiding. I'd loved to see Burrows testifying remotely.

Like when he went to Nottingham, no one turned up there either … Haz-been indeed!

I'm not calling anyone a liar but I'm pretty sure that i heard about Chelsey being hacked more than 6 years ago!

Rebecca English has always seemed to have great sources. I can't see her needing to resort to hacking.

Well yes I think we all have. But hitherto the culprits have been Mirror Group and Murdoch tabloids. WRT the DM, whose senior management claimed during Leveson (and continue to claim) that they weren’t engaged in hacking, it’s a new claim that they were also involved in hacking, and apparently this revelation was newly discovered by the claimants as recently as 2019/2021 when Byline Times wrote about it/Burrows allegedly started talking. So all within limitation, all within 6 years of this claim being started (ie when these proceedings were first filed at court). That’s why it’s a whole new stream of potential cases and claimants for Sherborne- because, unlike the Sun and the Mirror, the DM claimed to be hacking free, and so potential claimants can claim they had no idea the DM were using hacking/UIG against them until the last couple of years when it came out in this case that they may have lied to Leveson. It doesn’t matter if claimants knew other newspapers had hacked them if it can be reasonably argued that the DM concealed the fact that they too were involved in hacking. The concealment is what overrides the usual limitation of actions rules.

Today was the claimants' opening statement - presumably the defendants' will come tomorrow.

The Telegraph has an article outlining the defence they will be making to Harry's claims. Apparently their court documents say 'At all material times, the Duke of Sussex’s social circle was and was known to be a good source of leaks or disclosure of information to the media about what he got up to in his private life.' They also say that Harry himself discussed his private life.

https://archive.is/DT6HN

Apparently (ANL's) court documents say 'At all material times, the Duke of Sussex’s social circle was and was known to be a good source of leaks or disclosure of information to the media about what he got up to in his private life.' They also say that Harry himself discussed his private life

IIRC wasn't that what happened last time, @bluegreygreen?
I'm pretty sure a key point in the defence was that they didn't need to resort to illegality because they could get the info in other ways, but then one settled and Harry won against another, so who knows?

Ok so I can see their argument. Still has Bashir vibes to me.

Today was the claimants' opening statement - presumably the defendants' will come tomorrow.

Sorry - have just realised tomorrow is more of the claimants' opening statement (looking at more of the individual articles under consideration).

Considering what used to end up in the press about Harry hasn't it been clear for some time that his social circle was no where near as secure as William's?

I find this frustrating. I'd love the Mail to be called to account but I'm not sure this is going to be successful.

Yes @Puzzledandpissedoff - the difference here, as @Indianrollerbird says, is that the DM have always denied hacking (even during Leveson).

It is always possible @MrsLeonFarrell that some of the claimants may win but others lose ...

How can they use Chelsey as part of their defence if she isn’t one of the claimants? , maybe I’m wrong ( probably) but wasn’t them trying to include evidence about William and Catherine thrown out?

This is going on for TEN WEEKS? 😫

@jeffgoldblum I think the article they're discussing is one where Chelsy was travelling with Harry, and the DM had obtained travel details.

Harry was told he couldn't use articles about William and Catherine that did not involve him. Sherborne was told not to trawl for other cases, as this isn't a public inquiry.

.

Thanks @bluegreygreen , I’m finding it hard to follow or separate all his cases and I’m no legal mind so some of the information seems to be illegal from their side! 🤷‍♀️