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?

They don't have adult conversations ... but she pursued a claim against the Mirror because she 'wanted to help Grant'? And then gave her damages to Hacked Off?

Make it make sense, somebody ...

I'm feeling quite sorry for the Judge at the moment.

Or thinking maybe i don't understand how evidence works!

Indeed - which is why I asked if and when we're likely to see some actual evidence presented, and by who

Incidentally, does anyone know when Doreen Lawrence's turn is up? If suggestions that she's been roped in as the "sympathy claimant" are true, I guess it's to be hoped she'll have something more solid to offer

On the balance of probability, I do not believe that Harry knew nothing about Leveson when his brother and Buck Pal were heavily involved. I do not believe that Liz was oblivious when her dear, dear friend Hugh was front page headlines with Leveson and Hacked Off. c
Very early in the proceedings, Harry and Liz are coming across as disingenuous.

I thought I did @MrsLeonFarrell, having had to produce statements for court (and appear in court).

I was wondering if police reports etc would appear later in the proceedings - but would she not have mentioned reporting to police at the time?

Incidentally, does anyone know when Doreen Lawrence's turn is up? If suggestions that she's been roped in as the "sympathy claimant" are true, I guess it's to be hoped she'll have something more solid to offer

I really do hope so.

She’s not doing her credibility any good here.

I hope the judge has a better poker face than me. My eyes would be rolling so far back into my head.

I would have put her up first to give credibility to the rest. But i suppose in a world where celebrity is king that wouldn't occur the Barrister Hairdo.

I would get the giggles. I'm terribly prone to giggles at inappropriate times.

TBH I think they wanted Harry up first for the publicity and media coverage.

It is noticeable that today the headlines are full of "My life made hell by the press says Harry" without delving further into the fact that Harry evaded the questions and wittered about Meghan who is irrelevant to the case,

Barrister Bouffant loves publicity and it made a big splash on day one and much of the media has downgraded their coverage.

Which is so ironic, Harry being used to garner press attention whilst complaining about press attention.

Harry is full of contradictions

Suing for invasion of his privacy while he thinks nothing of invading the privacy of other for his money making projects

Did Harry not say that Meghan didn’t want him to proceed with legal action ?

So, I've been following the case and, like many of you, have been really confused about the fact that Antony White, the barrister for ANL, doesn't seem to be pressing Harry/Liz for evidence of their claims - the microphones on the windowsill etc.

So I asked ChatGPT why that might be and it was really interesting! Here's what it said:

Crucially:
Liz Hurley is not the witness who can “prove” who placed microphones.
She cannot give:

• forensic evidence
• admissions by investigators
• invoices
• technical reports
• internal ANL documents

So asking her about proof doesn’t actually advance the defence case. The judge already knows she personally can’t prove attribution to ANL — that will be decided later, from documents and other witnesses. Judges distinguish very sharply between:

• what a claimant experienced or believed, and
• what is legally proven

White doesn’t need her to concede that distinction — the judge already applies it automatically.

It also said this:

White’s strategy is almost certainly:

• let her make the allegation
• do not validate it by over-engaging
• then later say, in closing submissions:

“There is no evidence — none — that microphones were ever found, none that they existed, and none that any such device was placed by anyone acting for ANL. The court is being asked to infer a criminal conspiracy from belief alone.” That argument is much stronger when:

• the allegation has been left standing
• but never substantiated

Cross-examination is not where you win that point — submissions are.

Am I the only one who wonders if H is holed up in a hotel somewhere with 'appropriate tax-payers' security' - I can't imagine he's under a royal roof!

So, we finally have an alleged fact - that LH's window was bugged.

There should be some evidence to back that up? It was reported to the police at the time, or at least she got a security company to check out the property?

I mean, I don't know what that sort of microphone would look like, but if found something I was convinced (or suspected) was a bug my first thought would be 'what else has been planted'?

I.might not report to the police if I didn't think anything would come of it, and I was used to employing private security specialists.

But I would want to know there weren't any more i hadn't found yet.

And then, of course, the court needs the evidence that the bugs were the responsibility of ANL

I thought he was going back to LA? Isn't it those fake "legend of aviation" bought awards tomorrow?

Exactly even if there is a photo of said microphone, how can you prove who put it there?

He’s really lost whatever looks he once had. Not an attractive man.

Antony White, questioning Elizabeth Hurley on behalf of Associated Newspapers, continues to ask about Hugh Grant and his involvement with the press reform campaign group Hacked Off.
Hurley tells the court she used the word "persuade" earlier when talking about him asking her to bring a legal case against another newspaper publisher as she says he knew she would not want to rake up "unhappy memories".
She tells the court that "obviously, I get emotional quite quickly".
White shows the actress documents relating to Hacked Off, and she says she does not understand some of what he is asking her about.
White suggests that Hurley expected to be part of a group legal claim against ANL in 2016 - she says she did not, several times.
Again, this appears to be about ANL's argument that the case has been brought too late.
White says Hurley is a "prominent supporter and benefactor of Hacked Off" and would have been aware of their investigations. She tells him: "I don't agree with you."
"Frankly, I've never seen any of this before," she says at one point.

David Sherborne, representing Liz Hurley and the other claimants, is now asking her questions.
He is asking her about magazine articles brought up by Antony White earlier.
Sherborne asks if she ever gave permission to friends to give quotes anonymously, to which she replies: "Never."
The barrister then turns to some of the alleged unlawful articles, the first headlined: "So what now for Baby Bing?"
This appeared in the Daily Mail in June 2002, a few months after the birth of her son, Damian, whose father was the late US businessman Steven Bing.
Sherborne asks if information contained in the article was authorised to be given to the journalist. Hurley replies: "Certainly not."
The information was not something she had talked about publicly, Hurley says.
The second article is headlined: "Mummy's little boy - But 'Daddy' is still in denial as Liz gives birth".
Again, Hurley says she did not provide information for the article.

David Sherborne does not have many questions for Elizabeth Hurley, and finishes by asking how she feels about the claim her friends were anonymous sources.
She says the idea that her friends would be "tipping" journalists off is "preposterous".
Finally, Sherborne asks how she feels about having to come to court for this trial.
Hurley tells the court: "I don't really want to be here."
She continues by saying she finds it "intimidating" and quite traumatic, and that she doesn't "like talking about things" such as the issues she is having to discuss.
The judge tells her she is free to stay in court if she wishes, but she chooses to leave - when her son, Damian, sees this, he gets up and follows her out.

I worked on a trade stand that was on the horse trials/ 3 day event circuit in the early noughties. There was always a big do in a marquee for riders/owners/staff on the Saturday night, quite boozy. A couple of times when we were at Gatcombe (Princess Anne’s home), Harry would be at the party. Very drunk, striving to be the centre of attention, draped over various girls. Once, not long after Harry had poured a pint of lager over his own head, Cpt. Mark Phillips marched in with a face like thunder, grabbed him by the collar and pulled him out and into his waiting Landrover.
William also there a few times but just had a few beers.
Harry would have been about 16/17/18 ish at the time. There were hundreds of people in the marquees at these things. He was drunk and indiscreet. I don’t think the horsey lot would have spilled the beans but there are always bar staff/cleaners etc, and if this was his MO then it’s easy to see how information was leaked.