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?

Friends and social circles contributed as sources, White says
published at 14:40
14:40

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Antony White KC says it's a feature that most of the articles the complaints are concerned about were published during a time of sustained press coverage around specific events in their lives.
White says in some cases, the claimants' friends contributed as sources, and other journalists were part of social circles that would hear the information.
He then says he doesn't intend to respond to each of the articles that David Sherborne referenced in his opening for the claimants, because they have set out detailed analysis of these articles in documents provided to court.
"We submit there is a danger in picking individual articles", and looking at them in isolation, White argues.
"You need to see the pattern," instead, he says.

Daily Mail group's lawyer takes issue with comments over the Leveson Inquiry
published at 14:49
14:49

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Antony White says these proceedings were started with an "enormous" amount of publicity by the claimants that ANL executives lied at the inquiry.
He says the lawyers for the claimants cannot therefore say that it doesn't matter whether the evidence to the inquiry was false or not, which White quotes Sherborne as saying in his opening.
"My lord, this won't do," he says.
As a reminder, the Leveson Inquiry was commissioned to look into press standards following the phone hacking scandal of the 2000s.
Several senior figures from ANL appeared at its hearings and denied wrongdoing by the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail.

Sorry @bluegreygreencross post!

A distilled down opening from the defence
published at 14:54
14:54

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Antony White KC has very much distilled down his opening, which he has just concluded.
The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, is explaining for the benefit of those watching that this is because the judge and relevant parties already have an in-depth opening statement from White.
White says there is a lot of detail, and he seeks to assist the court in not going over the entire thing.
And short it is, indeed. He has used less than two hours for his statement - a day and a half was allocated for it.
This appears to have displeased the claimant's barrister David Sherborne, who says it would have been helpful to have warning that the timetable was going to be slashed in this way.

Court rises earlier than expected
published at 15:00
15:00

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
After a brief back and forth about the timetable for this nine week trial, court has finished for the day with the departure of Mr Justice Nicklin.
It's wrapped up for the day a few hours earlier than we thought it would.
We're expecting the next stages to see Prince Harry giving evidence to the trial, as it moves on from opening statements.

so finished for the day!!!

Antony White says these proceedings were started with an "enormous" amount of publicity by the claimants that ANL executives lied at the inquiry.

He says the lawyers for the claimants cannot therefore say that it doesn't matter whether the evidence to the inquiry was false or not, which White quotes Sherborne as saying in his opening.

It really is all about the campaign for Sherborne.

He seems very sleazy to me! , I’m no expert but it’s all about him and not really about those he’s representing ( at least that’s how it looks to me!)

No problem @jeffgoldblum

As AW took 2 hours rather than a day and a half, does that mean the witnesses will start tomorrow?

what strikes me is that if these are the strongest examples to be used in Harry’s case he’s particularly thin skinned.
I think his case is absolutely the weakest.
it’s people who don’t actively live in the public eye that I feel for in this case.
Or those who have had really personal and intimate details released.
Given Harry’s examples I cannot see how he was adversely affected.
I think he’s used others as weapons in his fight with the press, playing out an individual vendetta to his advantage.

he already comes across as a twat, and that’s before he’s even given evidence!

They'll need to get Harry out of the pub!

Looking at this from outside the UK - Harry's case seems to be more about him regretting his break-up with Chelsy and blaming the press.

It doesn’t say @bluegreygreen, but it seems to imply it restarts with Harry on Thursday!
so does that mean nothing till then ?

Thank you @jeffgoldblum and @bluegreygreen for the updates from today's proceedings.

Is that it wrapped up now until Thursday?

It’s mostly thanks to @bluegreygreen , she provided the link ( that I couldn’t find) all I did ( the only thing that I’m good at on iPhone!) is cut and paste! 🤣
and many thanks to you @IAmATorturedPoet for finding that article 👍

The last update isn’t particularly interesting or worth cutting or pasting, it does seem to imply that , thats it till Thursday though?! 🤔

It all seems very tenuous but I'm not sure I really grasp the ins and outs. As a lay person it seems entirely likely to me that a lot of details can be found just by moving in the right circles and speaking to the right people. Tabloids nurture that sort of contact all the time for celebrities.

I was once at a sports club with my children in casual conversation with someone I knew only as a mum of another child. That person mentioned that her husband was working for the then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. In passing she mentioned a private family nickname for one of the children.

Ever since this very trivial example I have realised how information gets out. It's many people making one comment that they may decide to pass on and which someone collects and puts together. Harry may have been hacked, although honestly I think it's far more likely that others have been than him. But he could also have just had people around him passing on tidbits.

Meghan really did 30 something women a favour taking him out of circulation!

Ever since this very trivial example I have realised how information gets out. It's many people making one comment that they may decide to pass on and which someone collects and puts together. Harry may have been hacked, although honestly I think it's far more likely that others have been than him. But he could also have just had people around him passing on tidbits.

Exactly. Especially when he is known to have included journalists in his social circle.

My dd was at Reading fest and got talking to a guy. He seemed to be some kind of sports coach who worked at the Wales children’s school and apparently taught George. As someone who works in a school, I was angry that he would go around telling random people this and I wondered how much he told to people he knew well. I bet it would be quite easy for pushy reporters to find people to talk.

Exactly. This doesn't mean I don't believe hacking happened. I don't know about these specific cases. I can just see how information can leak without hacking being needed.

Does anyone know where H is staying and what security he has away from the court? Presumably, as he was able to give sufficient notice, he was deemed to be at risk (trying not to giggle here).....

Just been shown this! , no idea who he is or if it’s true!

That's what I was wondering - don't see any benefit to them pausing for a day.

I'm assuming they will all have blocked their diaries for the full week.

I agree with this. Many years ago - it would have been around 2005ish - a colleague came in one Monday and told us her friend had turned up at her door at the weekend with Prince Harry in tow! They came in for a cup of tea and a chat and left. She was non plussed and vaguely amused at having a prince drinking tea on her sofa in her little house. We (her colleagues) were slightly amused by the anecdote but instantly forgot about it because we ultimately didn’t care. But you can imagine that info in the wrong hands could have resulted in any manner of wild/lurid story: “Prince spotted entering secret, London location with two attractive, older women!” It’s pretty sad that the bloke just couldn’t come and go without all eyes on him, but unfortunately, that’s what life in the public eye entails.

Can you please link the story/source.