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?

Iirc he criticised William for settling, maybe he can now see why?

Also there have long been reports that he bullied people at Eton and in the Army so it's really not a stretch that some may have called in stories. He also attacked cameramen and even his own protection officers.

After an intense day of back and forth, emotions come to the surface
published at 15:23
15:23

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
Prince Harry concluded his evidence with an emotional response to a question from his lawyer David Sherborne.
His lip wobbled as he looked at the judge and told him how hard this has been for his wife Meghan, accusing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of having "made my wife's life an absolute misery".
He choked on the words. After that, he finished giving evidence and left the courtroom.
It was a softer side to the duke, who throughout the day seemed frustrated as he argued his case against the defence lawyer - with the judge interrupting multiple times.
Of course, in his claims, he is alleging very personal and private information has been stolen from him. And it's the second time he's had to take the stand, very publicly, and discuss personal matters including past relationships.

Harry leaves High Court, flanked by team
published at 15:37
15:37
We're starting to see images of Prince Harry leaving court a short while ago:
IMAGE SOURCE, REUTERS

Doesn’t appear very emotional here!

Or giving him enough rope! Harry likes the sound of his own voice and I suspect he isn't thinking ahead to how those words can be digging him into a hole.
Edited to say:
He says it’s “disgusting” the idea that he shouldn’t be entitled to a private life.
Nothing about his life since walking away has been private, he personally has seen to that!

Thanks for all the detail, @jeffgoldblum .
So he got emotional about private information being made public?
Yes, it's not nice when people do that, is it Harry?

Claims of press intrusion formed part of Harry and Meghan's decision to leave UK
published at 15:46
15:46

Sean Coughlan
Royal correspondent
“They’ve made my wife’s life an absolute misery,” said Prince Harry, his voice cracking.
These could be his last ever words in a UK courtroom - and it was a reminder how much his family has been part of this battle.
He has been very protective of his wife Meghan and their children, and claims about press intrusion into his relationship with Meghan were very much part of their acrimonious departure from the UK, when they moved to the US in 2020.
In terms of his family, Harry’s attacks on the misbehaviour of the press go right back to the harassment of his mother Diana, which has always seemed to be a deeply-felt motivation in his long, long struggle with the press.

Harry says he only learnt about Hacked Off Campaign 4 or 5 years ago - oh Harry, what a halfwit you are.

He is saying he knew nothing about Leveson when one would think he would be interested in phone hacking cases (related to the News of the World) - and the Hacked Off members were present and have been very high profile ever since.

It's really fascinating, isn't it? He genuinely doesn't see how that his monetising the privacy of others, including loved ones, may be upsetting for them?
He'll never see that parallel, I don't suppose.

I have not got enough eyeroll emojis! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Thanks for all the details and reporting, everyone.

No worries 😉, cut and paste is my strong point! 🤣

Re @Puzzledandpissedoff ( and this is my edited quote ) " I believe drugs also push takers into paranoia and why does the judge need to know what Harry's world is like? He's not a counsellor ... "

I'd agree with this. H has spoken of his trauma , also drug taking ( weed and the South American thing which I can't spell ) very publicly. Now I am not saying this has caused paranoia , but owing to sad circumstances with a member of my family , I know it can, not always , but it may. I'm not saying that his drug taking has caused H's paranoia , but if I were cross examining I would question H's claim that tabloids wanted to push him into drugs and perhaps look more into cause and effect. (perhaps behind the scenes rather than in the witness box. - and maybe they have )

From the reports H doesn't seem to be coming across as very matter of fact about facts.

@BasiliskStare you're right, frequent cannabis use does often lead to paranoia, and other documented serious mental health problems.

I am being bullied into silence unfortunately. I can say in May - it’s a shame it’s not before.

Case is at Kingston Court starting on 11th May when all will be revealed. Anyone nearby should come along to watch.

I have a Daily Mail reporter ready to photograph arrivals. Some poor witnesses for the ‘gaggers’ have no idea what they have let themselves in for.

He is making it sound as if he was forced to bring the case and come and give evidence rather than deliberately starting action himself.
What did he think was going to happen? Of course they will be going over all the things that happened in the past . That is the whole basis of the claim.

He really doesn't have a clue.

Thank you - I know to my cost you are right . I'm just not going to say it in H's case because I don't know. But those closest to him I think should have some insight perhaps. 💐& it may not be a problem in his case - I don't know. Let's hope so.

Especially given that it was the Met police investigation instigated by William that triggered the Leveson Inquiry

This is on X but not sure if it’s veracity

That's his AMW Iv nailed it face!

Thank. You.
I doubt that he'll ever be adult enough or decent enough to credit his brother with anything.

Interesting if true!
I don’t think Harry realises that ANL are not going to settle or take this lying down, they probably have mountains of evidence in comparison to his “feelings “.

What is the public interest defence in media law?
published at 16:09
16:09
Throughout today's proceedings, we heard Prince Harry and Antony White KC expressing their views on whether disputed content published about the duke was "of public interest" - with Harry arguing a lot of it was not.
According to BBC editorial guidelines, there is "no single definition of public interest" and the term "covers a wide range of values and principles relating to what is in the best interests of society".
In UK media law, public interest can be used as a defence for publishing classified or protected information, or a story which would otherwise be considered defamatory.
An example of its use would be to protect a whistle-blower who might otherwise be breaking agreements or laws in disclosing sensitive information. But the public interest can also include freedom of expression, information that assists people to better understand matters of public importance, preventing people being misled by individuals or organisations, and exposing crime, corruption or negligence.
Whether the coverage of the personal lives of public figures, such as the Royal Family, can be covered by that justification is often a finely balanced call for publishers, and ultimately for judges and juries if a case comes before them.

It's in my diary, I might book Kingston appts for husband in the morning so he can pop in the afternoon. Do you expect it to go all day?
Sorry to sound a tad gleeful.