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?

Yes, nothing he said shows definitive (or even highly likely) proof of UIG.

It's not at all like the Vardy case where Colleen Rooney laid pretty clever traps.

Yes, I can imagine it's fecking awful - Chelsey didn't feel the end was worth it - but his examples (a nightclub/park/airport) aren't sterile zones - these are always rich pickings for journalists with some cash to find someone willing to sell what they've seen.

It wasn't like his brother's concerns - I left a voicemail with 1 specific person whom I know didn't leak - so somehow that voicemail was hacked.

When is the hearing supposed to start today?

Not sure - I haven't seen any updates on the BBC page. Maybe they won't be giving as many now that Harry had finished - which would be disappointing, as I'm interested in the whole case.

The Express is saying that Liz Hurley due to give evidence at 10.30

Apparently Harry is back in court

Have now found the Sky News live text - perhaps BBC aren't bothering?

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-mail-latest-duke-of-sussex-liz-hurley-elton-john-and-other-sue-publisher-in-high-stakes-trial-13493734

Liz Hurley due to start at 1030

'People were listening to me speak': Hurley says her dining room window was bugged
Now being asked questions by Antony White, representing ANL, Elizabeth Hurely tells the court about a period of time in the 2000s when she says there would have been "hundreds if not thousands of articles written about me... many as unpleasant as these".
She says the articles she is relying on for this case were among an "avalanche" of "intrusive" press interest and reporting.
Asked about complaining at the time, she says she always thought complaints were for libel and that in the 1990s, when she became famous, there were articles written about her that she did consider to be libellous, for which she did sue, and she settled these claims out of court.
The articles in question here were different, she says. They were "in essence true", she tells the court, and says she believes that is "because people were listening to me speak".
Asked about possible leaks in her "camp", she says she has never identified anyone she knows as a leak.
She continues, speaking louder now, to say she has told of her concerns about what was happening at the time, telling the court: "There were microphones on the windowsill of my dining room."
She goes on to say that her rooms and landlines were "bugged" - so yes there were leaks, but not from her friends, she argues.

And lots of assertions that later witnesses might disprove.

For example, that he did go to Ibiza (and who with); proof that his friend Teddy (or Bunny, or Jezzo) had a clandestine affair with a married journalist; or just a bunch of emails he's forgotten about to different female journos showing just how indiscreet he was to these people, whom he testified that he despised.

It’s a bit funny to hear him go on about sources, when he was inadvertently exposed as a source for a People magazine article.

There have been more ‘sources’ in his new life in the US reporting negative stuff than ever before, the downfall of Archewell was being rumoured for quite a while before it happened, the departure of staff, Meredith Maines in particular, was being reported for a few months before she quit. Lots of reports his wife is personally also a source for the US tabloids.

They don’t run a tight ship at all, and Harry was even less aware at that time, photos from a private party of him wearing a nazi uniform, naked photos of him from a private party in Vegas, photos of him doing drugs with friends.

The actress and businesswoman is now asked about an article in Vanity Fair from 2002, headlined "Modern Parternity", for which he suggests friends from the star's "camp" were providing information.
Hurley, whose son Damian was born in April of that year, describes the journalist who wrote the article as a "bit of a snake" and "ghastly".
She says "no friend of mine would say that", about a detail in the article.
Like Harry yesterday, Hurley appears a little frustrated by the line of questioning, particularly the suggestion her friends would have been leaking information.
More than once, she has told White she doesn't agree with the points he is making, and she tells him.
"Very few friends of mine" have anything to do with journalists or would give a quote, saying some would not know how.
Most of her friends are private and not in the public eye, she tells the court.
White wants to make the point that other publications had printed information about her and so the information reported by Mail titles was out there, in the public domain.

Oh dear - Liz Hurley also "tearful"

Were tears part of the coaching?

Quite possibly!

Happy to continue here with updates (whether copy/paste or summaries if it's waffle, but let me know if you'd rather not, as strictly speaking it's not Harry)

It explains why they got Harry on board, to boost the profile of the case. Bit sad because if others were hacked they deserve the public to know.

Why are famous people so convinced their circle isn't leaking? It doesn't even have to be a direct leak it can be a series of conversations that do the rounds.

Antony White, representing ANL, is continuting to show Elizabeth Hurley magazine articles separate to the articles at the heart of her case.
He is making the point that she also gave interviews herself.
Hurley tells him she gave "very few interviews" and said "very little" - and that he is "more than welcome" to read parts to the court as they are "very benign".
Asked about one interview, again she says it is "benign" and that this is the "crux" of the issue of this case - when you are in the public eye, you "do press", she tells the court, especially when you are promoting something.
However, she says there is a difference between the quotes she has given in interviews and that they are nothing like reports of "heated conversations" and "mean things", which she says appeared in the press "in my opinion because information was illegally obtained".
She says there is nothing "controversial or mean" in her quotes in the article and that she has "never publicly said anything which I didn't want my son to read".
Again, Hurley becomes emotional and is now wiping her eyes - but again, she says she wants to carry on.

My interest is more related to the case than Harry. I think he is probably the least likely of the claimants to have been hacked.

Exactly - it just needs to be people not being as careful as you would like.

A bunch of emails which might prove him to be a liar and which he'd "forgotten about"? Now where have we heard that before?

And yes please to the continued updates, @bluegreygreen. As I've said from the very start there's a lot more involved here than just Harry, and the principle of the thing matters

Exactly this, it is a conversation with one, a chat with another, a email with a third - on their own quite innocuous but all jigsaw pieces that make the story.

Plus never underestimate the power of money.

Is it customary for someone in the beginning of a case to release a statement saying how compelling and amazing their evidence was? Don't think I've ever seen that before.

There was a "huge" amount of press interest in Elizabeth Hurley and her relationships and pregnancy, Antony White, representing ANL, puts it to her - the actress agrees.
He asks how she came to select the 15 articles she has put forward for her case, and she says she did so with her lawyer.
White is now taking Hurley through her witness statement and asks the actress about previous claims she has brought against MGN (publisher of the Mirror) and the publisher of The Sun (NGN).
White asks that if her lawyer was acting for her in claims against other newspaper groups, would she not have alerted her if she also thought there was a potential claim against ANL.
Hurley says she can't say she "spent a lot of time" thinking about the issue, but that her lawyer did alert her in 2020, during the COVID lockdown.
David Sherborne, Hurley's lawyer in court today, suggests we could take a break now, but the actress says she is happy to keep going.
However, there's a moment of levity in court as White says that in fact, he would like a break.

It doesn't have to be your actual friends - so many rich people don't consider that their friends might "phone a friend" who unknown to them leaks it,

..... or they don't seem to notice their staff - domestic staff, nannies, tutors, drivers and taxis, assistants, personal trainers, dog walkers, stable staff, tradespeople working in their house.

.... or they might have heated phone calls in shops, cafes, pubs, restaurants, airports (just look at how much gossip of this type circulates on MN "Worst Celebrity" threads)

Then there are the activities that are witnessed and circulate through social groups - golf clubs, tennis clubs, private clubs etc (especially if you are in the habit of getting blind drunk and blabbing like Harry) For example a lot of stuff about Harry was well known in the horsey set.

Yes, I was thinking about that yesterday, @Lunde, when Harry made that arrogant comment about Rebecca English wanting to write stories about him to 'make her career' - that someone who thinks like that probably doesn't even see the staff working around them.

So again, are we going to see any actual evidence of the many things the claimants "believe" or "think", and if so when and from who?

Liz Hurley's alleged "microphones on her windowsill" for example ... isn't that the sort of thing someone would want to take a picture of for the record?

Did she call the police?

Liz had contested paternity issues so far more likely to have PR briefing against her and PI acting on behalf of the Bing family