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?

Agree @binkie163, I would be worried. I assume they thought they could use the time better in other ways.

I also see that in his statement he has nicely cancelled out his claim of the UK being the most dangerous place in the world ...

Because of my position as a member of the Royal Family, both my security team and I always had security concerns even before I had arrived at a location because of how often the press knew about our every movement, sometimes hiding at a location before we even got there.
The security risk was particularly great when we were abroad and could not always rely on police assistance.

Ah right, sorry. The most recent was the family of Jay who went missing in Greece.

So not IPP status then?

I don't know. As a layperson I would have thought not. But maybe civil cases aren't the same as criminal ones. Others will know better. I would have hoped there wouldn't be press briefings - and actually I can't see the point if it is just those judges deciding.

To me it looks like he’s contradicting himself as usual @Puzzledandpissedoff 🤷‍♀️ , but I’m no lawyer or I would have been bringing up all his past lies and dancing around the court , chanting “ liar , liar ,pants on fire!” 🤔🤣

I am guessing not addressing 10 of 14 moans by Harry is they have witness statements or proof it came from reliable source or was reported first elsewhere.
I would love a 'few good men' jack Nicholson moment when harry denies something he said earlier when left to ramble and pontificate....I never said that....I can get the court to read back what you said. You said danger....I said grave danger....you said is there any other kind.

Harry has been lucky up until now that other papers settled. This lot haven't so considering the potential loss of millions they must be pretty confident.

It may be Liam Maguire - I think someone said he was in the photos of the people attending court.

I may be misremembering but didn’t him and Sherborne get a telling off for grandstanding outside the court on a previous occasion?

Harry cannot stop correcting the narrative. The fact he has released a statement make me think he doesn't think it went well.

That’s completely at odds with his own autobiography ffs. This is embarrassing.

Ah, but it's "his truth", TheAutumnCrow, and as we've seen time and again any dissent over this counts as persecution

I'd say questioning would be the same, but then he's never been rigorously questioned so we can only wonder how he'd react

@TheAutumnCrow - I do agree with you here . Why would a newspaper want to drive him to drink and drugs. It looked like ( and indeed by his own admission , as you say ) he was doing that quite nicely himself. To sell more newspapers , yes I can get that , whether that's right or not , separate issue . But I don't believe any newspaper wanted to drive him to drink or drugs. Or he could not have done it, or in later life he could have stopped. He had all the access to all the therapy he needed.

ETA Harry has never been properly questioned @Puzzledandpissedoff . I don't have a bucket list but if I did , and it would be impossible , would be to have H&M properly interviewed by Jeremy Paxman. But they never will be properly questioned. Unless of course ANL's KC does it for half of the duo . & I hope he does.

What a cowardly, entitled, spoilt, mendacious, self-absorbed, unintelligent, immature, petulant bully this man is.

Nobody, or company, ever, should gain from newspapers hacking people. I can’t see how any person who is rational and doesn’t have an interest in such a company can support it. Hacking damages us all. Obviously there’ll be plenty more mudslinging from those who have done it, or who may still do, as far as we know. It’s a secretive world.

Are you involved in the case?

I feel similarly about Simon Hughes.

I absolutely agree with you.

Thus far ( and previous cases have proven hacking ) this case hasn't . So I don't think any would disagree with your premise , but whether H has been hacked in the way he has claimed in this case remains to be proven .

ANL are strenuously denying the hacking charges.

ETA - cross post.

@explanationplease No one on this thread to date has been remotely supportive of hacking.

Some of us have followed the case through several hearings and are waiting to see what convincing evidence the claimants can bring. ANL have denied any unlawful activity (including throughout the Leveson Inquiry)

I’m still struggling to see where hacking can be proved as opposed to leaky friends and associates.

I'm absolutely no lawyer, BasiliskStare, but didn't a PP who is once say that civil cases can be decided on a "balance of probability" rather than the more rigorous proof a criminal trial would require?

I realise that other media groups who've had the ruling go against them and/or settled stand apart from this case - also that each claimant's case stands on its own merits - but if the others can produce better evidence than what we've yet to see from Harry I just wonder if that could tilt the probability in his favour?

Also surprised at Harry making a statement already. He just cannot shit up can he?

@Puzzledandpissedoff the standard of proof for a civil case is 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', but that will have to apply to each case in turn (i.e. each case has to be won on its own merits).

That's how I understand it from explanations earlier in the thread.

Thanks, bluegreygreen; that's more or less how I understood it, only you put it better than I did

Sorry to jump in here but Christopher Jeffries springs to mind for me.