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 am sure he can , and he has , WRF , RAVEC etc . Whether he can shut up - I doubt it. Shitting upwards is his forte.

(I know it was a typo - it just amused me - so thank you for that. )

Very sad but I cannot find the story in the Daily Mail. There is one in The Guardian but in the style of missing person - plus all the emergency services were out in force.

I wonder what Harry would say if one of the journalists reveals that information came from the Sussex ( ie Meghan) camp ?

Thank you!

Cornwall connection - interesting.

I will message him.

Agree - but this is not hacking.

lol thank you!

lol thank you!

lol thank you!

lol thank you!

lol thank you!

lol thank you!

Sorry for the multiple posts. Don’t know how tat happened.

I think he's inexplicably been allowed to moan and yap without putting a relevant or succinct point before in court.

From what I've seen no incontrovertible proof has been presented so far.

I think he's been shitting up since he flounced 😉

Cheeky but is anyone able to give me a synopsis of today

Harry remains upset that the Daily Mail have published stories about him.

He disagreed with all points put to him by Antony White KC, but despite saying he believed ANL carried out unlawful information gathering didn't produce any evidence.

He was only questioned for a couple of hours and taken through only a couple of the articles he's complaining about.

He and his team have since put out a statement suggesting that they are doing well because ANL's cross-examination 'collaps[ed] immediately under scrutiny from Prince Harry.' Some of us think there is probably much more to come from ANL.

Edit to add archive link to Telegraph text summary of day if you want to look at it
https://archive.is/lRXIA

So Charlotte Griffiths (Daily mail reporter) was the journalist who recently reported that it was nailed on that Harry would get armed security when he was in the UK. The information was apparently given to her by sources close to the Sussex’s.
My question is could this undermine Harry’s claim.
1 That it couldn’t be so traumatising if his staff are feeding stories to a Daily Mail reporter.
2 That the Daily Mail reporter will have evidence of whom she gets her information from.

Probably safe to say the courtroom artist doesn't subscribe to the 'fox' theory.

Yes, I was thinking something similar earlier.

Charlotte Griffiths is one of 2 DM reporters (the other is Bryony Gordon) who regularly reports stories placed by Sussex sources. As you say, she will have evidence of that.

She will likely have evidence for her previous stories, and if so, she only needs to say in court that she continues to have regular contact with the Sussexes for him to look very foolish.

Thank you @bluegreygreen for taking the time to write that and for the link.

I think the reason why the DM have been putting out positive stories and cultivated a relationship through these 2 journalists is precisely so that they can use thatcas a defence. Harry and Meghan have stupidly fallen for it. They did it with the Stephen Lawrence case and have used that one good thing they did as a defence against accusations that they were racist.

It wouldn't be a defence against unlawful information gathering, if they did that. It's likely, though, that they have other evidence to refute that.

It would discredit Harry.

It might have done him good to have been properly questioned for once and made to behave himself

By the looks of it, Harry is going for the DM because he felt they harrassed Meghan and is using the hacking as a way of doing it, so he wont win because hes fighting the wrong case. However, I dont believe the DM didnt use private investigators or hacking. People who worked in newspapers at the time, I believe said they were certainly involved. I do think they covered their tracks better than the Sun so will get away with it.

Times summary of today - it's hilarious

https://archive.is/oPKXA