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?

@Puzzledandpissedoff thank you for c&p my post from the other thread.

I think there's a chance Sherborne might try to introduce other evidence surrounding the 2021 witness statement. As long as it doesn't involve waiving legal privilege, he might look at introducing notes/emails/letters leading up to the finalisation of that statement (I gather there were some investigators involved who might be in possession of these). The matter of whether or not Burrows signed it is somewhat alarming. Because if Burrows didn't, someone else did, and that someone is in serious contempt of court.

My understanding (and hopefully Serenster can confirm) is that, even if the DM/defendant is granted leave to cross examine Burrows, Sherborne won't be able to examine him on the stand due to taking the hearsay notice route. I can't see any reason why the judge won't grant the defendants leave to cross examine him, after all, almost the entire case hinges on the contents of the 2021 statement. But I think he may well order the DM to disclose what they paid Burrows, when, how much and why. And if there is anything untoward or hinting of bribery, Sherborne can introduce that as evidence refuting the credibility of Burrows backtracking from his original 2021 position.

The whole thing is an utter mess. 5 of the claimants are only in this litigation because of Burrows' 2021 evidence, including Harry. I feel deeply sorry for Baroness Doreen Lawrence being swept up in this nonsense by a bunch of publicity seeking celebs with more money than sense and a git of a lawyer.

Doreen Lawrence was told by Harry that she had been hacked, and he is the reason she's involved in this case. Prior to this, she'd had a relationship of trust with the DM, as they had campaigned to get justice for her son, Stephen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g70271ndlo

A little bit of humor. My local news radio station runs several ads a day for California Psychics, who claim they turn away an enormous amount of possible employees and will give you money back. A few days ago, they ran a clip of Kim K denouncing her psychics. One of the news reporters said " She should have called California Psychics" and everyone started snickering.

She’s the victim here! Sucked in by Harry , without his funds !

There would be a ghastly irony if Harry embarked on this whole thing having been fooled in the same way Diana was by Martin Bashir.

Is this the case where Harry was invited to meet Sherborne at Elton’s home in France, and they convinced him to sue, then Harry personally convinced Doreen Lawrence to sue with them?

Or is that another one of the cases ?

My understanding (and hopefully Serenster can confirm) is that, even if the DM/defendant is granted leave to cross examine Burrows, Sherborne won't be able to examine him on the stand due to taking the hearsay notice route

Thanks once again, @Indianrollerbird; so if this is right someone will have to telll Harry that the defendant's people can cross examine Burrrows, but his can't ... Oh dear

And BTW, @myrtleWilson, I'm told (though others may know better?) that the California bar exam is no harder to pass than any other state's; it's just that the place has a lot of flakes whose chances would be small anyway but choose to blame the system

I'm British and I think I would say either is ok, too.

I had a similar wonder about spelled and spelt a few days ago when I was writing something..

It does seem to an outsider that Sherborne is not as careful as perhaps he should be in some things.

I'm remembering his statement outside the court after a previous case, which sounded like a legal argument rather than a response to a conclusion of a case, and ended with the opposing side having to make a statement themselves refuting some of the points he made.

In the words of my Granny, he does seem to be all mouth and no trousers. No wonder he isn't a KC.

It does appear that he spends more time coiffing his hair than doing due diligence 😆😆

The claimants now have a witness who wishes to remain anonymous

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/baroness-lawrence-of-clarendon-obe-and-others-v-associated-newspapers-limited-3/

I have no idea how he hasn’t been reported to the Bar Council for stuff like that. Highly disreputable to the profession.

That was very diplomatically put, bluegreygreen , and I'm sure the same has occurred to plenty of us

What beats me is why Harry chose him, but perhaps he has a good line in talk and managed to persuade Harry of his all-round wonderfulness?

Thank you Puzzled - I was going to say something a bit blunter and then reminded myself I don't actually know anything about the field!

Oh I think on his day Sherborne is very effective. He was Coleen Rooney’s barrister in the Wagatha Christie case iirc. But this entire phone hacking cases saga has been ill thought out and badly executed from the outset. You can’t run civil cases like a crusade, that’s not what the system or rules are designed for.

Ok, I openly admit that I know nothing about law. But why would Burrows accept a large payment for a joke? Didn't he think it might be a good idea to look a gift horse in the mouth ( and possibly scan it for microchips)?

If Burrows didn't sign it, who did? Why did Burrows, if he didn't sign it, accept the money?

Also, can anyone sue him?

The whole thing just seems very confusing.

What are the penalties for presenting a forged document as evidence? To a lay person this sounds like quite a big deal.

Fine, costs order and/or imprisonment for contempt of court for the signatory. Professional censure, including the possibility of being struck off, for the legal professional involved if they are found to be responsible for an untruthful witness statement and a forged statement of truth being filed in the case. It can be pretty serious. (Unless you are a lying duchess with “baby brain” 🙄)

You can’t run civil cases like a crusade, that’s not what the system or rules are designed for

So I gather, @Indianrollerbird, and I don't doubt Sherborne can be effective on his day, but to a layperson it looks like another complete mess involving a coiffed self publicist and a client with insufficient sense to know what the hell he's doing

Burrows was working in a murky industry (tabloid journalism) with a very hazy moral compass. The Leveson enquiry revealed some of the practices that were endemic at the time he was working. He and many many others were not remotely bothered about what they were doing if they were paid for it.

By and large, I don’t think he has any credibility. Which makes it hard to know whether he was lying when gave the first statement, lying now, or lying at both times. Either way, I can’t see that a judge would be minded to place any weight on anything he says…

If a Judge isn't going to take him seriously as a witness what does that mean for the case?

That’s how I see it too. I think the multiple statements and murky payments from both sides have effectively neutralised Burrows’ evidence. But unfortunately for the claimants, it’s only one side that is depending on it.

It definitely weakens their case - we have been told that his witness statement was the key that persuaded some of the claimants (e.g. Doreen Lawrence) to join the claim. Of course, we don’t know how central a plank his evidence is to their case, and what else they have to support their allegations. And most cases don’t stand and fall on a single witness.

This is probably unfair of me but the suspicion occurs that if Mrs Lawrence wasnt involved his case would have far less credibility.