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?

Witnesses in civil claims can sit in court and listen to others’ evidence, have coffee etc. It’s the opposite in criminal cases where there is a danger witnesses will “cook up” a story between them. It’s because witness statements have to be exchanged prior to civil court so everyone knows what each witness will say ahead of time.

I don't either!

My thinking is that each plaintiff can only provide evidence in their particular case.

And that i read the judge could find one claim of illegal activities proved but another not proved.

So one defendant, same accusation, but each plaintiff's case is looked at separately?

I wonder when we are going to get to the juicy witnesses?

The Gavin Burrows guy who claims he didn't write or sign the document that convinced many of the claimants to sue?

The claims that the claimants have paid huge sums of money in return for some witnesses to testify against ANL?

After watching the news on the television regarding this case I can't help but think what a pathetic bunch the claimants are. The world is in turmoil and this group of wealthy privileged people are bleating about something that may or may not happened years ago. I exclude Dame Lawrence from this as I think she's being used by the other divas.

I would hope that I am wrong ( but honestly I don’t think I am ) , I believe that D Lawrence has been deliberately targeted and brought on board for the sole reason to bring sympathy and authenticity to the case , none of the others are particularly positioned to be sympathetic to the general public but DL does have authenticity, if it’s true that she is having doubts, then Harry visiting her and strong arming her into this is not only disgusting and self serving but a complete travesty of honesty and respect.

On a lighter note are they touching up Harry's hair in some newspapers? As my evidence Exhibit A where he has a boyish haircut and Exhibit B which is a still taken from a video of him leaving court.

Very curious! 🤨, about time Harry was treated like the adult 40year old man he is , no sugar coating, no escaping his vitriolic remarks, just as he is.

I saw DL interviewed and she said she had no suspicion at the time, no direct knowledge of, evidence of but had been told by Prince Harry!
Now, however, Baroness Lawrence alleges that whilst supporting her, the publisher tapped and hacked her phone and made payments to police officers. Lifted from ITV news 13th January.
That is a serious allegation, It's illegal for the police to sell info why are they not in court for it?

Maybe he is using that spray on thickener stuff?

Yes if police had taken payments they’d be up on criminal charges by now.

Especially as it was such a serious case, it was a racist murder not salacious celebrity gossip.

Exactly. I know the Met have issues but there is no way they would have gotten away with that.

The photographer Dan Kitwood claims that he was asked by Harry’s staff to frame Harry’s face in a way to avoid his bald patch .

That corruption involving police and other public servants was what Leveson 2 was supposed to be about. And the reason some people believe the likes of Gavin Burrows are scared.

I wonder if she has made a formal complaint to the police as well as bringing a legal case against the Daily Mail?

Nick Davies, a Guardian investigative journalist, wrote a book called Hack Attack. It includes allegations that the certain police within the Met did indeed collude with phone hackers.

I did see that but I also wondered why they’d comply with this request. I get it for a PR photoshoot or something where you might have editorial approval, but for press shots taken “in the wild” why would you bother? Being kind maybe but it’s not like Harry has shown any goodwill or appreciation of that kindness.

I just read in the Times that LH had a conversation with DF about the father of her ds. Details of it appeared in the DM. She said they must have been bugged as there was no way DF would have spoken to journalists so they must have been bugged. It was put to her that the story first appeared in Vanity Fair in the US. She said she was unaware of that. That’s just embarrassing. This is in addition to her claiming she was barely aware ten years of previously claims against the press despite her very close relationship with HG. She is just not credible IMHO.

I'm losing track - who is DF?!

I was going to ask the same? Her father?

Yes, he originally published the book in 2015 after the News of the World closed and . He has recently updated it. Glenn Mulcaire went to prison as did Andy Coulson.

Having had difficulties with the Daily Mail to get an unrelated public interest story published (with irrefutable evidence) it is very careful about what it prints - annoyingly so.

The question should be how did Elizabeth Hurley know the bugs were from the Daily Mail. There are a lot of other newspapers plus over 28% of journalists are freelance.

"The question should be how did Elizabeth Hurley know the bugs were from the Daily Mail."

Apparently Steve Bing was doing everything to try to disprove he was the father of Damian and when it was confirmed, through DNA tests, he was the father, he was claiming Liz Hurley tricked him, and refused any relationship with Damian.

So it would not be surprising if he was the one who bugged her home, he had the money and connections to do it and apparently was a totally weirdo to boot.

You should probably look at bit more into police corruption.

All the claimants have to prove is a single case of hacking/UIG, and I find it hard to believe they won’t in some of the cases on balance of probability, especially wrt things like airline info, which Harry won on in a previous case iirc. I think ANL’s best line of defence is limitation of actions. That’s what they tried to get the case summarily dismissed on, and that seems to be what they are pressing about most in cross examination. I don’t find the excuses either Harry or Hurley have given credible or even something normal grown ups would use as excuses. They sound infantile.

The defence needs to show that, even if they didn’t know for sure ANL were hacking them, there was sufficient information available to them that would result in a reasonable belief that they had been hacked. Obviously ANL’s denials at the Leveson Inquiry point to concealment, but who believed them? Certainly not Hugh Grant. And I doubt very much Prince William believed ANL and I doubt William wouldn’t have shared that disbelief with his brother. I find it very hard to believe that, having won substantial damages against one tabloid newspaper , the likes of Hurley and Frost would not have thought, “Hang on a minute, what about all those stories in the Daily Mail?”

If Hurley genuinely thought the bugs on her window sill were from the DM (as opposed to any other newspaper or journo), she’s just provided something useful for the limitation of actions defence. Which might be why she’s not being pressed as to provenance. It’s enough that the presence of the bugs should have led her through the line of inquiry, as well as her relationship with Grant/Hacked Off, and having had a legal team to advise her on other hacking claims. The technical stuff - the legislation and case law on reasonable knowledge that kicks off the limitation period - will be dealt with in (barrister led) submissions further down the line, and her evidence of such knowledge will be used by the defence to try to persuade the judge that she’s brought the case too late.

Operation Elveden came out of the News of the World hacking scandal.

Nine of the 34 people convicted were police officers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Elveden