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 think so @bluegreygreenbut I’m not completely certain.

Court resumes, with Harry arguing his past relationships aren't in public interest
published at 14:13
14:13

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
We're back after a lunch break, with judge Mr Justice Nicklin in his seat. And Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), gets straight to it.
He brings up a picture of Prince Harry at Badminton Horse Trials in 2003 of him with a woman leaning on his shoulder. It was published in The Sun newspaper.
Prince Harry corrects White, saying the woman is merely tilting her head, not leaning on him.
White says this picture was "bound" to illicit tip-offs to the press about who the woman was.
Prince Harry says it would equally garner interest from the tabloids.
White puts it to Harry that he's been in a number of relationships, which the prince agrees with - but argues none are in the public interest.

Prince Harry says it would equally garner interest from the tabloids.

Yes, which is why people would phone to tip them off

Doh!

It's also why if you want privacy you alter your behaviour ...

I happen to know she is not.

A relationship that leads to a £30 million public wedding because he's a Prince sounds like a lot of public interest....

But this is Harry's issue - he is happy for press articles along as he controls the narrative

14:24

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
White turns now to Prince Harry's witness statement, which says he became aware in 2005 that some phones of the Royal Family's staff had been hacked by News Group Newspapers.
He writes that aside from one instance, where he learned of Prince William's voicemail being accessed, he thought the rest was confined to staff members.
This is key because a large part of ANL's defence is that the time has run out for the claimants' case.
The timeline set out by the claimants suggests the earliest they could have known about suspected hacking was 2016.

Sadly I think he has to believe this as the alternative would be that those friends in his inner circle had leaked the information.
on this point I feel for him. How can he admit that those he trusted the most betrayed him.

Why didn't Harry go to law firm with hacking suspicions, ANL lawyer asks
published at 14:28
14:28

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Antony White KC suggests that if Prince Harry wanted to ask questions about suspected hacking on his devices, law firm Harbottle & Lewis would've been available to him.
This is the firm that initially advised the Royal Family on hacking claims against News of the World.
Harry rebuts, and says it would have been up to them what they share, and he wasn't the one paying their fees, that was the institution. They never came to him with what they knew, he says.
Prince Harry says that if he was concerned about hacking claims by ANL prior to 2020, which is when he said he learned of it, he would've used the moment when his wife Meghan Markle was in litigation with them.
This was regarding the publication by the Daily Mail of a letter she wrote to her father.

Journalists threatened my personal security, Harry's witness statement claims
published at 14:28
14:28

Tom Symonds
Reporting from the High Court
Prince Harry's written witness statement attacks the Mail newspapers and its journalists personally for threatening his personal security and making his early relationships impossible.
He describes one Daily Mail article, "Let Her Rest In Peace" from July 2006 as "really disgusting" with a "crude headline" and "explicit reference" to a phone call between him and the Duke of Cambridge.
The reporter, Rebecca English, is now the Daily Mail's Royal Editor.
Prince Harry says "I remember Rebecca English as a young journalist at the time, trying to make a name and career for herself through the use of my private life, without shame".
Prince Harry's claim focuses on stories between 2001 and 2013, a period during which he had several girlfriends, including Chelsy Davy.
His statement claims The Daily Mail was first to disclose her name and "from that point onward everything blew up and her life as she knew it was over; her ability to enjoy some semblance of privacy evaporated instantly".
He says he took action against Associated Newspapers because the publisher previously claimed phone hacking had not happened at its newspapers. This statement was made at the Leveson Inquiry into press standards in 2012 by the Mail editor Paul Dacre.
Prince Harry says: "They had me so convinced that I didn’t even think twice about it, nor did I dare question Paul Dacre out of fear of retaliation. The advantage they had was that their approach appeared more belligerent than the rest; 'if you dare take us on, we will destroy your life' kind of approach.
"I don’t think it left anyone with any other option other than to believe Associated and accept they must be telling the truth."

Harry rebuts, and says it would have been up to them what they share, and he wasn't the one paying their fees, that was the institution. They never came to him with what they knew, he says.

If Harry was their clients, as he obviously was, who paid the bills is completely irrelevant. Harbottle & Lewis owed him exactly the same duty of candour as every other client.

Harry rebuts, and says it would have been up to them what they share, and he wasn't the one paying their fees, that was the institution. They never came to him with what they knew, he says.

That makes no sense - the question is about Harry going to them, not the other way round.

Prince Harry says that if he was concerned about hacking claims by ANL prior to 2020, which is when he said he learned of it, he would've used the moment when his wife Meghan Markle was in litigation with them.

Again makes no sense - a totally separate legal case about something completely different.

Interesting . I don't expect you to say BTW. I've heard she is smart and kind. But you obviously know her.

Defence concludes questions to Harry
published at 14:33
14:33

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Antony White KC is now questioning Prince Harry's evidence about the Levenson Inquiry, which was conducted to look into press standards after the News of the World hacking scandal, from 2011-2012.
He is questioning how much Prince Harry followed it, to which the duke tells the court "it wasn't part of my world".
In his evidence, it says he believed the sworn testimonies from ANL executives when they denied phone hacking. There's more on that in our last post.
White, for the defence, concludes his questions to Prince Harry there. We'll now hear from Harry's own lawyer, David Sherborne.

'Not true': Harry says when pressed on claim he shared private intel with Mail journalist
published at 14:36
14:36

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
We're hearing now from Prince Harry's lawyer, David Sherborne. He references when the duke was earlier questioned on his social circle by Antony White KC.
He quotes Prince Harry, who said earlier he wouldn't discuss things from the articles openly. He's asked to elaborate on the meaning of this.
"That kind of information is the kind of stuff that one would share one on one. Phone calls, voicemails, etc," he says.
Sherborne moves on to the topic of journalist Rebecca English, who the defence earlier suggested was close to Prince Harry. White earlier said Prince Harry would share private information with her off the record.
That's not true, Prince Harry says now.
We now move to Barbara Jones. Earlier, Prince Harry agreed she knew how to "work people well".
Sherborne asks him to expand on how he thinks she would get information.
"Blagging, and pretending to be someone else to get access to places she probably shouldn't," he tells court.

4m ago14.31 GMT
The Duke of Sussex said he only learnt of the campaign group Hacked Off “in the last four or five years”.
Replying to questions by Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, Harry said: “I happen to think they do fantastic work, Mr White.”
White replied: “I am pleased to hear it.”
The barrister also said that if Harry wanted to inquire about the 14 articles complained of in the case, “an obvious inquiry or port of inquiry would have been Hacked Off to see what support they could give you”.
Harry replied that he didn’t think “that would have been acceptable or even an option” due to being part of the royal family.

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

Harry contradicts himself here - he says he didn't get support from them due to being in the royal family

Yet he claims to have heard of then 4-5 years ago - so after he left

And he ignores the fact the Charles and William both took legal action

Prince Harry says "I remember Rebecca English as a young journalist at the time, trying to make a name and career for herself through the use of my private life, without shame".

He really does think a lot of himself, doesn't he?

Yep! , nothing I can say that really shows the depths of my contempt!

Harry says going over stories again is 'traumatic'
published at 14:39
14:39

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Prince Harry now tells the court that he feels "not great" hearing these stories again, and describes it as a "recurring traumatic experience".
"I've never believed that my life is open season to be commercialised by these people."
Again he says his life is not a matter of the public interest, and becomes passionate in his speaking.
He continues: "Having my life, like others, commercialised in this way since I was a teenager, delving into every single aspect of my private life, listening into calls, blagging flights, so that they could find out where I'm going. It was a time then when everybody was in competition with each other.
"To sit here and go through this all over again and have them give their own defence and claim that I don't have any right ot any privacy is disgusting."

Visibly emotional Harry says Mail publisher 'made my wife's life misery'
published at 14:39
14:39
BREAKING

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Through the course of this litigation, Prince Harry says "it's only got worse, not better" for him in his life.
He says all he and the claimants want is an apology and accountability, and it's awful that he is being made to give evidence and bring it all up again.
The worst part of sitting up there in the witness box, he says, is that ANL have "made my wife's life an absolute misery".
He gets visibly emotional delivering the final sentence, his voice breaking.
That marks the end of Prince Harry's evidence. He bows and leaves the court.

He says all he and the claimants want is an apology and accountability, and it's awful that he is being made to give evidence and bring it all up again.

Hmmm.

No one forced you to bring a court case, and if you decide to do it you will have to give evidence, not just expect people to take your word for things.

And he needs to stop with his mother and Meghan, neither has anything to do with this case! 🙄

I wonder if the other complainants are wishing they never got involved with Harrys pet project or instructed a different barrister.
I especially feel for DL for her it is about intrusion at the worst time of her life, although the mail was the only tabloid who had the balls to name her son's killers. For harry it is a Vendetta, she is being tainted by his rudeness and stupidity. Sherborn needs to pull a rabbit out the hat but what does he care, he gets paid whatever happens.
After the security case harry bleated to BBC no one had told him he couldn't win the appeal! He thought 100% winning was a formality.
To the legal eagles here, what happens if say 2 people can prove 1 thing each, does that win for them or have they got to prove every single allegation made or lose. Are there degrees if winning/losing?

But the case isn't about his right to privacy, it's about proving that ANL obtained information illegally. Isn't it?

Yes, nothing to do with privacy, all about proving illegality.

FFS

I'm sorry - that isn't a considered response. He's had all the apologies / investigations into his mother's death. His and his wife's treatment in the press has been gone over and over. As has the OW interview and the NF series.

If he were my son , I'd be advising him to just draw and line and be happy. But he isn't. As for him saying tabloids wanted to force him to take drugs - well , not sure that one's going to stick H.

I despair of him. I wish he could find contentment.

Oh and by the way @jeffgoldblum - for the avoidance of doubt the "FFS" was at your quote - NOT at you. Thank you and @bluegreygreen for your updates. I think it may be harder than watching an episode of WLM 😂