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 was thinking that. If you see microphones surely you'd take a photo. It comes across as if she'd rather think her windows were bugged than her friends might leak.

So Liz Hurley has been involved with Hacked Off since Hugh Grant told her she might have a case against the Mirror in 2015?

Doesn't this blow her timeline out of the water?

Elizabeth Hurley is being asked about previous cases she has brought against other publishers.
Associated Newspapers (ANL) has denied allegations of wrongdoing but also argues this case has been brought too late.
Antony White, representing ANL, is trying to establish whether Hurley could have brought her claim sooner and is asking about her former boyfriend, Hugh Grant, and his involvement with the press reform campaign group Hacked Off.
The court hears Grant told her she might have a case against the publisher of the Mirror in 2015. She says she thinks he might have "popped round" to tell her, as they only lived around the corner from each other.
The actress received damages from MGN, publisher of the Mirror, in 2017.
In court, Hurley says she did not want to pursue a claim at first as she hadn't taken much interest in the Leveson Inquiry into press behaviour that had taken place a few years earlier.
However, she says she wanted to help Grant.
"He's my best friend, one of my best friends," she says, and in the end she agreed - and gave her awarded damages to Hacked Off.
She says Grant and Hacked Off were doing "good work".
Hurley tells the court they don't see each other very often and usually talk about "silly" things or family issues or scripts, but talk of politics or "anything grown up" was "phenomenally" unlikely.
White asks if Grant had known about potential unlawful information gathering by ANL, would he have told her?
Hurley says "supposition is not the same as evidence", and that she thinks she was told by her lawyer in 2020 that alleged evidence had been found.

How easy news leaks.

J.K. Rowling was found out as Robert Galbraith in 2013 when Chris Gossage, a partner at her law firm (Russells Solicitors), leaked her secret to his wife's best friend, Judith Callegari, who then tweeted the information to a journalist at The Sunday Times, leading to the public revelation

Not a good look for a solicitor

But I can imagine Harry forgetting who and what he has shares with people.

Do you think Meghan would let him go to trial if she risked being exposed as a leak?

As questioning by ANL's lawyer Antony White continues, Elizabeth Hurley becomes tearful once again.
She says she was "incensed" to learn about alleged unlawful information gathering and that the thought of it is "deeply hurtful".
The actress also says she feels awful that others have been hurt, including people who weren't in the public eye, because of it.
She becomes very emotional as she tells how, through this case, "all this stuff is being regurgitated again" and "people's privacy is being invaded again".
White wants to know how much "due diligence" Hurley carried out on Hacked Off before donating her £350,000 damages in the Mirror case to the campaign group.
"I trust Hugh," she says, adding that she continues to trust the group is doing good work.
She says the group was "exposing some journalists" who were allegedly acting unlawfully.
However, she adds that she wasn't "involved" with the group. The actress laughs as she tells the court it is an "extraordinary thought" that she would have been.
She says she doesn't consider the money she gave to them as a personal donation, but simply money she handed over.

I'm reminded of the story about Prince William's first meeting with Camilla and how it was "leaked". Camilla's private secretary told her husband, who told his tennis partner who then told someone else who worked for the Press.

All done with zero malicious intent (certainly initially).

Also remembering how the Press can "spin" a story. An off hand remark about a celeb friend having a conversation on the phone about an awkward situation, and it's a headline about a "heated conversation" - just because the journalist played the odds knowing the subject matter that that was likely.

I’m interested, yes please, I’ve been out and was disappointed to find the bbc link hasn’t updated! , now I’m here I can help if you share the link 🙏

(Hurley) says she doesn't consider the money she gave to (Hacked Off) as a personal donation, but simply money she handed over

This is starting to sound sillier with every quote

A yes please and thank you 🙏 from me too @bluegreygreen

In July 2011, when the Leveson Inquiry was announced, there were reports that the phones of various celebrities, including Hurley's, had been hacked, Antony White now puts it to the actress.
She says she believes she was filming in the US that year and can't remember when the issue came on her radar.
White asks if she remembers Hugh Grant's "widely publicised" appearance, and she says she doesn't.
"I sound like a disloyal friend," she tells the court, but adds again that she did not see it and that she was filming Gossip Girl in the US.
White continues to ask about the Leveson Inquiry, saying that Hurley's name came up, and highlights coverage by the Guardian.
He says this was "important" news he believes Hurley would have been aware of.
Hurley says again that she didn't pay much attention to it. She tells the court she was "followed so much", saying there was a time when her son was born that there could be "20 or 30 men" outside her house, "jostling and surrounding me".
She says the news that someone knew details such as her number plate would not have been interesting information, as lots of people would have known it.

Exactly! That's how a lot of 'secrets' get out even among plebs like us.

You tell this little story to 'just this one person' even though you know you shouldn't. Your husand maybe. Your best friend. But they're trustworthy and won't pass it on, will they? Well, they also tell 'just one person'. Who tells just one other person. And so on and on.

If you're famous and indiscreet, as we know Harry is, then obviously the danger of 'leaks' is multiplied, especially back in the day when there were far less constraints on the press. It would be a wonder if stories didn't get out. That's not to say there was definitely no hacking involved, because we know that was rife in this period. But from what I'm hearing thus far the case is not a strong one.

@jeffgoldblum 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

I find it quite interesting how neither of the witnesses so far were interested in or aware of Leveson when hacking would surely have been something which was an issue in the circles they moved in.

It was a big thing at the time and even more so for those in the public eye who might have been victims.

Liz Hurley says she 'didn't often listen' to Hugh Grant talking about Hacked OffAntony White is continuing with questioning about Liz Hurley's friend and former boyfriend Hugh Grant and his work with the campaign group Hacked Off.
He puts it to Hurley that she follows Grant on "Twitter", now X.
She says that she has not used Twitter for many years and adds: "I don't look at it."
She says by 2015 she thinks she had switched to Instagram.
White asks about a tweet posted by Grant in 2015 about "other newspapers out there" who were involved in phone hacking and says Hurley would have known about this and that the actor was "intent" on exposing other newspapers.
Hurley says "I guess", but that she "never gave it much thought".
After more questioning, she says she might have met people from Hacked Off at birthday parties they threw for Grant, but says she is "not involved" with them.
She says she is "not proud of it", but didn't often "listen to Hugh when he was talking about this stuff".

Sorry, but I simply don't believe them, though I can quite see why they'd deny being aware/interested - after all admitting it would raise questions which could surely affect the time limitations on the cases

Both of them had direct links to people whose experiences led to Levenson, William and Hugh. These disengenuous denials are not passing the smell test for me.

Thanks @bluegreygreen, this is interesting! , so she wasn’t bothered before, didn’t pay attention but now ( her fame and fortune) is on the wane suddenly she’s aware and going to court?
sounds suspicious to me! 🤔

So Hugh grant - who she testified earlier this morning was her "best friend" - gave very well publicized evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 and she claims to know nothing about it?

Although a few years later she gave Hacked Off £350k - although she's not involved with them, it wasn't a donation, she just gave them money because she trusted Hugh.....

Stretching credibility there Liz!

I'm finding this the most frustrating thing. I cannot believe that no one at ANL ever used illegal methods of obtaining evidence at a time when it seems to have been usual practise. Why bring cases that don't seem to have actual evidence like, say, a police report detailing the discovery of a microphone on your window sill. (I really wanted to type that last bit in caps but refrained!)

Yes I was going to say the same, we all had camera phones then to quickly whip out …. Again all of her evidence seems very vague.

You have to remember she and Hugh don't have adult conversations. It's a pity Teletubbies didn't do an episode on hacking to alert her to the possibility.

… I’ve had a premonition of H’s future waaah-fest when the UK judges are fed up with his nonsense …. (Sorry the pic may take time to show)

Like Harry's "evidence" it seems more about her feelings than facts.