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?

I asked this earlier @Lunde, it was explained to me that if it includes Harry aswell then it’s allowed.( I think that was the short version of the better explanation!)

From the BBC reporting at 12.31 - Sherborne's opening statement

..................................................................
Sherborne is now going into when each claimant discovered the claims.
He says many of them were reassured when they watched Associated Newspaper Limited's repeated public denials of liability in the years before, especially under oath at the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.

Baroness Lawrence: Early January 2022, when she learnt private investigators confessed to illegal activity targeting her. She was "utterly shocked".

Duke of Sussex: 2020 - He was "put off the scent" until he was told that he had been targeted by Associated.

Sir Elton John and David Furnish: January 2021. The court is told that Elizabeth Hurley told them that she had found out in 2020 that she had been targeted by investigator Gavin Burrows, and they had too.

Sadie Frost: Shortly before January 2019, when she learned about voicemails being intercepted on her nanny's phone.

Sir Simon Hughes: 2022. This was when he first saw "direct internal material" that indicated private investigators had been used by Associated against him.
............................................................................

From this is appears that Simon Hughes was the only person who claims to have seen direct evidence.

The others all appear to have "been told" or "learned" ca. 2020 (timing seems suspicious but 6 year limit) - so who was going around enlightening these celebrities? Or are some of them "packing peanuts" to give publicity and legitimacy to some of the other claims?

That's how I understand it - someone else may have a better explanation.

A lot of them seem to be joint travel plans. Other articles he's using involve him being asked to be a godfather, and details about his/Chelsy's relationship.

BBC 11.18

...................................................
Another story in December 2007 covered Harry's plans to take Chelsy Davy on a "make or break holiday".

Sherborne says there was "striking evidence" this came from a private investigator called Mike Behr who obtained "precise details" of flight plans.
But he tells the court, this wasn't easy.

In an email to a Mail staffer, Behr wrote: "Had to do several searches".
Chelsy Davy was "on standby and then at the last min paid cash for a ticket at the airport. Maybe this is their way to try to avoid detection", the email said.

The investigators, working for the Mail, "went to such lengths that despite everything the Duke of Sussex and Chelsy Davy did to maintain their privacy, it was entirely frustrated," Sherborne says.

He says the inference the information was unlawfully obtained was "absolutely obvious."

.......................................................

TBH - I don't see how this really effects Harry at all - it's not his privacy unless you really stretch it

I don't see why it is "absolutely obvious." that this information was obtained unlawfully - rather than paying off an airline employee etc

Actually it makes Harry look like a crap boyfriend if Chelsy was only originally booked a standby ticket for a "make or break holiday"

Nothing new yet! 😢

The others all appear to have "been told" or "learned" ca. 2020 (timing seems suspicious but 6 year limit) - so who was going around enlightening these celebrities?

Yes, it's all a bit suspicious.

Also the email trail involving Sadie Frost (which will come up in evidence) suggesting that she knew earlier, and the judge's previous comment about the 'silence' surrounding the discoveries (no emails / texts of outrage to family or friends).

No disagreement from me !
it has been reported that Harry was a tightwad to his girlfriends ! And despite his comments, he obviously didn’t love her or value her that much if he kept cheating on her! 🤷‍♀️

I’m sure I read that Harry sent d Lawrence a text !? 🤔

Harry has left the building at lunchtime - not expected back until Thursday when he gives evidence

👀🤔

Yes - but the judge commented in one of the previous hearings that there was very little evidence of reaction to any of them 'discovering' that they had been involved in illegal information gathering (you would expect people to discuss with friends/family, and there was no evidence of that).

I mean that I’m sure it was reported that DL was texting by Harry personally and told the information and invited to join the case.
I definitely remember reading this and thinking it sounded rather strange and almost as though she was invited to add sympathy and legitimacy to the proceedings!

Yes - but was that spontaneous reaction with family/friends, or contacting someone else who might also have a case?

I don’t think either of us think it was spontaneous and I doubt the judge would either, i wasn't aware that Harry was that friendly with her ( I could be wrong) , it seems to me that he was instructed to contact her and invite her.

Also whats taking so long? Are we not going to get the rest of the defence?

I’m not very patient! 🤣

IIRC I read that Harry first "discovered" that he was a "victim" when he was at a house party at Elton's home and David Sherborne was present. Almost sounds like an attempt to drum up high profile clients for a group action.

Did Harry truly have no curiosity and didn't bother to get the Met to investigate much earlier? Especially in view of his own brother getting the whole NOTW hacking investigation started in 2005?

It seems obvious that Harry was “recruited “ by Elton but under his own steam or as a favour/ suggestion by Sherborne?

Was it this article from The Times? @jeffgoldblum

archive.ph/Texwx

This was the report I read of one of the earlier hearings, where it seemed likely that Sadie Frost had known about the possibility of hacking earlier
https://archive.ph/kzskx

I haven't found my source for the judge's comments yet.

Yes! Many thanks @IAmATorturedPoet ! I was sure I hadn’t imagined it! 🤣

I too remember hearing those comments from the judge @bluegreygreen!
so I don’t think you are wrong.

Double post

'Suspicious information' already in public domain, defence claims
published at 14:36
14:36

Tom Symonds
Reporting from the High Court
In many of the cases, Antony White KC tells the court, information in stories said to have been obtained unlawfully had actually been published previously.
The Daily Mail's crime correspondent Stephen Wright wrote an exclusive story in 1997 that the Labour government was calling for a public inquiry to examine the Stephen Lawrence murder case.
Associated Newspapers says the story came from the then Home Secretary Jack Straw who told the Daily Mail’s editor, Paul Dacre.
However, the story also mentioned that the Lawrence family were considering legal action and a possible private prosecution - information which the claimants suggest had been obtained suspiciously.
Antony White said according to Wright, this had actually been previously reported by The Guardian, a newspaper friendly with the Lawrence family and so was already in the public domain.

Getting back to the defence statement
-AW says in many of the cases information said to have been obtained unlawfully had actually been previously reported
-in the Lawrence case, some information came directly from the Home Secretary to Paul Dacre (DM Editor), and some had previously been reported by the Guardian
-he says most of the articles complained about were published during a time of sustained press coverage about specific life events. They weren't isolated articles and should be looked at as part of a pattern.
-in some cases, friends contributed as sources, and journalists were part of social circles