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?

Please ... there are other threads where the Duchy of Cornwall has been discussed, with references.

There are various different 3rd party funding arrangements available to litigants in the UK these days. I’m pretty sure the defendants are allowed to know if an arrangement is in place (as this might effect any decision as to settlement), but I am not sure that such an arrangement will become public knowledge as part of the court record. At the very least, I would hope the likes of Elton John would do the right thing by her, as she’s been used as a human shield in this case.

There are various different 3rd party funding arrangements available to litigants in the UK these days. I’m pretty sure the defendants are allowed to know if an arrangement is in place (as this might effect any decision as to settlement), but I am not sure that such an arrangement will become public knowledge as part of the court record. At the very least, I would hope the likes of Elton John would do the right thing by her, as she’s been used as a human shield in this case.

You’re not wrong. I would have thought someone with his kind of magical thought processes/therapy based thinking would take the view that the universe meant for them to be not work out, as he wouldn’t be living his best life in the greatest love story ever told had it not been for the forces that kept him and Chelsy apart. Although maybe the sort of therapy that keeps you in a state of perennial victimhood doesn’t allow you to be philosophical about such matters.

It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds. From reading the summary on the BBC of the opening statements, the case seems pretty flimsy.

Lots of it seems to be “there was an article about X situation happening, and there’s a payment to a private investigator around the same time” - surely that’s not robust enough to make a case on, particularly with no paper trail that evidences what the payments are for. I mean the payment could be for anything? And not everything private investigators do is illegal either.

While some of the circumstances seem more suspicious than others, I also don’t know how the claimants can say definitively that the only way the information could have been obtained is unlawfully - who really has that accurate a memory of who else other than you might have been privy to certain bits of information for events that happened 15+ years ago. I mean Harry can’t recall something accurately that happened 5 minutes ago.

Right now it all feels a bit he said she said, but I don’t see how that’s going to be enough to find in the claimants favour.

How long is Harry here for? Is it known?

I read that he is pencilled in to give evidence later this week unless there are delays

Sorry for digressing. I wonder if bankruptcy is an option for Harry if he loses.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a27044016/katie-nicholl-prince-harry-meghan-markle-interview-2019/
apparently the case against Katie Nicholl is a non starter, Harry invited her to party with him and his friends, that was where she got her stories not from unlawful evidence gathering.

This is not a typical third party arrangement. It is rich individuals with an agenda offering to pay legal bills for someone to pursue a claim they otherwise wouldn’t have - or a lawyer offering to work for free as they think their involvement enhances other rich clients’ cases.

The argument put forward that leaked information can only have been obtained by illegal means is ridiculous and David Sherborne knows it.

I've been following the BBC live feed this morning and saw this reference to emails.
An email from Heather Briley to Caroline Graham at the Daily Mail, at the same time of this article, says: "Have spoken to contact at British Airways here half an hour ago and offered $$ in return for name. He's gone off to investigate."
"Harry is paranoid about her being outed", another email says that is shown to court. It's from Caroline Graham, sent to David Dillon, her desk editor.
"We say these emails clearly refer to the payment of information unlawfully obtained through British Airways through payments or blagging," lawyer David Sherborne says.

I wasn't clear that this did refer to blagging as I understood it, so looked it up again. Interestingly, there are 2 definitions of blagging in general use in English -
1 - to obtain by wheedling
2 - to obtain private or confidential information by impersonation or another method of deception (an offence under the Data Protection Act).

I hope no-one is mixing the two up ...

Yes - from what I've read "blagging" in this context involves impersonating someone else - like those Aussie radio presenters pretending to be calling from the Palace to get Kate's medical information (where the nurse who was blagged later committed suicide).

However the big question for me is if these were cases of "blagging" what are the payments the claimants are alleging for? Is this just not people selling stories to the press? It might be immoral but I don't think it necessarily demonstrates hacking or blagging.

It will be interesting to hear the claimants' evidence - but there seems to be a bit of a jump in Sherborne's argument
There were stories printed about the claimants' private lives .... few people knew about these events .... therefore Sherborne argues that the newspapers must have gained information illegally .... but that is quite a jump and so far no evidence provided.

IMHO there are usually people in celebrities' circles who are happy to make extra cash - friends, family, housekeepers, nannies, assistants, drivers, hotel staff, airline staff etc etc etc

It reminds me of one of the cases Harry previously lost in court - a birthday dinner in a restaurant on Saturday nights. Sherborne/Harry argued he must have been "hacked" - but the judge pointed out that anyone could have tipped off the press from inside the restaurant or the street.

I know hindsight is 20/20 but that's an interesting article to read so many years later.

However the big question for me is if these were cases of "blagging" what are the payments the claimants are alleging for? Is this just not people selling stories to the press? It might be immoral but I don't think it necessarily demonstrates hacking or blagging.

Exactly - if they were falsely impersonating someone who had the right to the information there wouldn't have been payments.

Payments suggest the other person has likely acted against company guidance (or against DPA rules) but not that ANL committed blagging.

I didn’t see it , at the time ( or care particularly) but it’s interesting that in this case Harry obviously doesn’t remember or realise that anything put out there is forever and can always turn back up inconveniently!

Yes. He doesn't seem to realise that people around him knew things and were free to talk to whoever they wanted. If he's letting journalists into his events what did expect to happen.

As always he expects to have things his own way , have others do the work and do whatever he pleases without scrutiny or repercussions!

@bluegreygreen many thanks for the updates and please keep doing it , I’m having issues finding anything and am being bombarded by trump news ( whether I want it or not!) , of course this could be a blessing or a curse for Harry depending on your thoughts 🤔

No problem - I'm more interested in the legal aspect than in Harry, to be honest.

I'm following this link - it's the live text on the BBC page, continued from yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czx14ee79ndt

Thanks 🙏

The defence barrister, Anthony White KC, has started his opening statement.

Main points so far
-in most cases, the articles don't appear out of nowhere, but are a continuation of ongoing reporting
-the claimants' case is relying on journalists' payments to investigators, but they haven't shown what those payments are for. They are saying that because those investigators have previously been shown to do illegal things for journalists at other papers, they must have been doing something illegal in this case. He says the judge struck out this 'generic' evidence before.
-he points out that their reasoning is based on Burrows' testimony, which he has now withdrawn

Yes I have now read up to the latest ( not back till 2 booo!)
i am no expert but white had some very good points ( I thought) .

I think the article you linked upthread is a very good example of what the defence are saying about Harry's circle being a 'good source of leaks'. It would be a good one to show in evidence 😀

I have a feeling that it will be! 😉, there is a reason it’s popped up now!
I think that ANL probably have a treasure trove of past articles at their disposal!
im also thinking that after levinson, they probably have kept “receipts” 🤔

From the live court updates this morning - most of Harrys "cases" seem to be from 15-20 years ago and be about Chelsy Davy - it appears that her information was obtained - flight bookings etc (by whatever means). Chelsy seems to have a better case than Harry but clearly doesn't want to sue. Can Harry actually sue for information being obtained that wasn't his?