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?

@ThePoshUns Archive link for Telegraph live text summary (contains the 'Mr Mischief' comment)
https://archive.is/lRXIA

Today we reminded the Mail group who is on trial' - Harry and team release statements
published at 16:22
16:22

Sean Coughlan
Royal correspondent
After his appearance in the witness box, Prince Harry said: “Today we reminded the Mail group who is on trial and why.”
Both sides are likely to claim that they are ahead on points - and there were no knock-out blows on either side.
But Team Sussex said after Harry's evidence: “Today’s cross-examination was revealing in its weakness: assertive in tone, but collapsing immediately under scrutiny from Prince Harry.
“Associated couldn’t wait to get him off the stand, questioning him for just two hours and avoiding 10 of his 14 articles entirely.”

It was rumoured Harry never liked to pay his own ans friends had to pick up the tab. If I had to work for a living I would want to pay for a wealthy royal who's own costs are totally covered.

Perhaps some saw it as a way to recoup their costs. Or as has been said, drunk people not being guarded.

A visibly emotional Harry concludes his evidence in Mail group trial
published at 16:22
16:22
Wednesday saw the start and end of Prince Harry's evidence in this trial, where he is one of seven high-profile claimants accusing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) - publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday - of unlawfully gathering information relating to their private lives. A claim the publisher denies.
Here's a reminder of what we heard in today's session:

• Harry told the court about the impact the alleged intrusion has had on his personal life. "I always suspected those close to me, including my friends and bodyguards, of being the sources of that private information," he wrote in his witness statement
• He was interrupted a couple of times by the judge, who told Harry that as a claimant he didn't need to argue his case and answering the questions was enough. But Harry said he felt compelled to give as much context as possible, so the judge could "have an idea of what it is like living in this world"
• Harry told Antony White KC, the lawyer for ANL, his past relationships - and personal life - were not in the public interest (there's more on what that means here)
• How the publisher and wider press covered stories relating to his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was another concern for Harry. Visibly emotional while answering questions from his own barrister David Sherborne, Harry said: "They continue to come after me, they have made my wife's life an absolute misery"
• Day three of the the trial is over but the civil case - which does not have a jury and will instead be decided by the judge - is due to sit for a total of nine weeks. Yesterday, ANL's lawyers accused claimants of "clutching at straws".

Oh to be hoped . I think it is beyond time he was kicked into the long grass with his whinging , vexatious lawsuits. (my words - I'll be doing a whip round if H comes after me 😂)

Surely public interest is irrelevant to this. They are alleging ANL used illegal methods to obtain information. It doesn't matter what that information was used for, the case is about methods.

I'll contribute at least a fiver @BasiliskStare!

Agree @MrsLeonFarrell - the topic of public interest may be theoretically useful, but isn't relevant to this case.

Can I ask a question? So, Harry has made some statements. For example, he has not been to Ibiza. How is this challenged, if the other side have evidence that he has? ( not saying he has or they do but, as an example) He just seems to have been able to say things without any evidence and hasn’t been challenged ,does this challenge happen?

Interesting reading through to see the details that the Telegraph has picked up but the BBC didn't.

Prince Harry's day in court comes to an end, but there's still a long way to go in this trial
published at 16:33
16:33

Imogen James
Reporting from the High Court
It was certainly a dramatic end to Prince Harry's evidence, on a day when there was a buzz in this sprawling building.
I'm now taking a breather in the hallway, where Prince Harry earlier strolled past me, calmly, no sign of the emotion that overcame him towards the end of his evidence session.
So, what next?
ANL's lawyer Antony White KC has thrown some curveballs in this trial. Yesterday, he finished his opening argument in under two hours, meaning Prince Harry had to move his appearance forward a day.
There's been a lot of contention, even frustration from the judge already about the schedule.
And while the prince's day in court has ended, there's still a long way to go in this trial. We are in week one of nine, and we are yet to hear from more of the famous faces who joined Harry in bringing this lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

Oh ! What have I missed @bluegreygreen? Anything juicy? 🤔😢

Assume it happens later, from witnesses for the defendant (ANL)

Sorry if this had been posted , but here from Sky

Today we reminded Mail Group who is on trial, Harry says
We've just had a statement come in from Prince Harry and his spokesman.
After giving evidence today - but not the whole day, as Associated Newspapers finished their questioning sooner than anticipated - his spokesman said:
"Today's cross-examination was revealing in its weakness: assertive in tone, but collapsing immediately under scrutiny from Prince Harry.
"Associated couldn't wait to get him off the stand, questioning him for just two hours and avoiding 10 of his 14 articles entirely."
Prince Harry, meanwhile, offered a shorter statement:
"Today we reminded the Mail Group who is on trial and why."
Earlier, a source close to Harry accused ANL of "dirty tricks", after the duke's appearance in court was brought forward to today, rather than tomorrow as originally planned.
In response, the publisher of Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday said:
"Prince Harry has been in London since the weekend ready to give evidence in this case, which he launched three and half years ago.
"We don't intend to dignify this briefing by the other side with any further comment."

It will be all week

Not really @jeffgoldblum, just the tone is a bit different, and they've included fuller quotes from Harry's written statement.

Things like:

“I believed that Associated had a legitimate source for that information.

“I had no reason to suspect that it had invented the source to conceal the fact that my private information had been obtained by unlawful means.

“Moreover, I believed their sworn testimonies and the Leveson Inquiry and I didn’t believe anyone would be so brazen to lie under oath given the very serious consequences of doing so.”

Am I the only one who finds these cases frustrating? I want ANL to stop using non famous people's private lives a a revenue stream (I sort of feel if celebrities post about their lives they are fair game). This isn't going to change anything.

Do we know who Harry’s spokesman is? I would like to send him something.

Interesting 🤔, different style of taking notes or a sign of bias?

So have Harry and his spokesman given 2 separate statements?

Spokesman
Today's cross-examination was revealing in its weakness: assertive in tone, but collapsing immediately under scrutiny from Prince Harry.
Associated couldn't wait to get him off the stand, questioning him for just two hours and avoiding 10 of his 14 articles entirely.
Harry
Today we reminded the Mail Group who is on trial and why.

Somebody explain a civil case to him, please.

Is he allowed to speak about the case whilst it's going on?

Non famous people like who?

I'm thinking about ordinary members of the public whose lives intersect with a news story and then get plastered across the tabloids and intimate details and unpleasant news articles written about them.

I didn’t believe anyone would be so brazen to lie under oath given the very serious consequences of doing so.”

That's a bit brazen from himself, didn't his wife lie/forget stuff in court and he was pretty brazen on OW. Neither faced any consequences. He didn't seem to give any actual evidence of illegal activity just that he thinks it must be.
I think I would be a little worried if I was let off after 2 hours, I wouldn't be fist pumping victory. I would be wondering why a seasoned KC was so casual about it and what they had up their sleeve.
Most journalists like police keep daily notebooks so they can refer back to everything if challenged, no need to rely on memory.

I understood what you meant - but I am asking for examples as I cannot think of any.

"I always suspected those close to me, including my friends and bodyguards, of being the sources of that private information," he wrote in his witness statement

But on the stand he insisted that his circle doesn't leak, @jeffgoldblum?
Unless he meant it was those who ANL targeted?

To this layperson it just read like an extended whinge rather than any actual evidence of UIG being presented, but maybe that'll come later ...