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?

Crossposted with @GwendolineFairfax8

Is your information about all the claimants, or one in particular?

Thank you, bluegreygreen; not being a lawyer either I honestly thought the obligation was more on the prosecution, so your reply was helpful

Edited to add that if ANL really do know everything the claimants have got and their lawyers don't consider it "good enough", then I can see why they'd take the attitude sue and be damned, but no doubt it'll all come out in the wash

As with everything on this thread, @Puzzledandpissedoff, my knowledge is what I've gleaned from reading and having a job where I've needed to prepare statements regularly and appear in court a few times - so I'm always happy to be corrected by the people who really know.

But then I think - what if they use those tactics on a judge? Or a Minister who is going to sign important legislation? Or a rape victim - whose rapist is some popular lad?

I think if they did do something unlawful they should be held accountable, no matter who the victim is. I've yet to be convinced there is evidence that they did in these cases, but there's a long way to go.

While I agree it is important for the press to act legally, it is also important for them to be able to challenge and criticize the behaviour of "important" people. Clearly Harry would like no-one to be able to do anything other than report his behaviour in the most sycophantic and compliant way.

I listen to a podcast about PR called 'When it hits the Fan'. This week one of the presenters was away, so the other teamed up with the host of a podcast called 'Fame under Fire' who looks at celebrity stories, especially legal cases.

They discussed how some of the current popular 'influencers' are doing the same job as tabloids were 20 or 30 years ago - coming alongside people and acknowledging their concerns. Stories spread amazingly quickly this way, not through tabloids.

It makes sense that they have to disclose.

Unlike a criminal trial, in a civil trial the aim is NOT to have to come to trial. Hence the risk of not accepting a 'reasonable' settlement if it is offered.

So each side needs to show each other their evidence, so they can both decide whether to offer / accept a settlement.

So IF the plaintiff have a strong case I would have thought ANL would have offered a settlement that they thought reasonable.

As it’s gone to trial they either think they can win, or they have offered a settlement they think reasonable, and it's been refused.

Agree - I saw an article in the Telegraph by Camilla Tominey about exactly this point, calling out Harry’s hypocrisy (link below if anyone wants to read it).

He's absolutely fine with commercialising his personal life in the media when he’s the one doing it - and arguably that would be absolutely fine if it was only his personal life that he was exposing, but he’s also exposing deeply personal, spiteful and one sided stories about his family and a number of other people in his life, without their consent. He’s worse than the tabloids!

And then there’s the fact that he’s more than willing to use the media for his own publicity and fame - as long as they only print positive things about him he’s all good with it.

If he didn’t court the media himself, if he genuinely just wanted to live privately and quietly and never shared anything about his own family or those in his circle, then I would have a degree of sympathy and support for him in this case, but that isn’t the situation.

I don’t think the media should behave unlawfully, and at times I think they can be very cruel (I have a huge issue with pap shots of celebs on the beach with comments about their cellulite for example), but my issue with Harry and a lot of the other claimants is that they want a one way street on media coverage - all the praise and attention that builds their fame, none of the scrutiny or criticism.

Edit - forgot to add link! https://archive.ph/uay2C

Exactly @elessar. Harry doesn't truly want privacy. If he did there was nothing to stop him living a private life with his family in the US.

What he wants is to control what the media puts out, so that it's all positive. That's why he campaigns against social media, and keeps criticising the First Amendment in the US. It's also one reason why he's involved in this case.

Don't get me wrong - if there's evidence of illegality I hope the claimants win. I'm just not convinced in Harry's case that it isn't just part of his wish to control the narrative.

I think Camilla Tominey is absolutely right. The NF documentary and Spare must have caused a lot of distress to H’s family. I am thinking particularly of Catherine. He and his wife tried to make her out to be some kind of frigid mean girl.

Although this article is from 2023 - it shows the murky behaviour of the "research team" who have provided the evidence for Prince Harry and the other claimants - many have been paid for their evidence and have previous convictions for dishonest behaviour.

https://spectator.com/article/the-real-phone-hacking-scandal/

Archive link for Spectator article https://archive.is/pX8QL

Crossing the streams for a moment

At this point I think Harry needs to get Rachel (Traitors) on board. She is his last chance of switching the narrative.

There’s a difference between not wanting your every move ripped to pieces or being followed but paparazzi to wanting to have some privacy.

These RF threads are so inconsistent. For some people he’s not important at all but at the same he’s important enough to warrant constant scrutiny from the toxic UK press. He should shut up and go away but still these threads are about every little thing he or his wife does.

Let’s be honest; there are posters here that want him to lose and will be disappointed if he doesn’t irrespective of the behaviour of the DM - the well known bastion of honest reporting.

Is that true though?

He does not bring cases against papers that say he is a dickhead/stupid/cranky and so on.

His cases have been against illegal "news" gathering, not opinion.

I don't know what the outcome of this case will be, but we do know that the other cases have exposed illegal behavior by the papers, and got them to admit to the unlawful activities - (Murdoch re his investigators at the Sun, and the Mirror). "Substantial' damages were paid.

Because of that, I think it fair to assume biased reporting in the Times so I don't follow this case there.

No matter what the personalities of PH, or Elizabeth Hurley, or Elton John, or Dame Lawerence are, I support the case. Decent journalism is a bedrock of democracy in my opinion.

Very few can take these big players on.

Finally, and in the interests of full disclosure, a dear friend ended up in the cross hairs of the tabloid press. The things the tabloids did to that family are almost beyond description. It would take a book. Years later, the family are still picking up the pieces. They will never recover financially - legal costs meant they had to sell their house - the paper has deep pockets and delayed, delayed, delayed. The digital footprint is brutal - it costs a lot to get that cleaned, and has a clear impact on their children. They aged an awful lot in that period and one of them is now very sick - all of us believe it is a result of the trauma they lived.

And make no mistake - once they swarm over your life - twist it this way and that - it is trauma.

For some people he’s not important at all but at the same he’s important enough to warrant constant scrutiny from the toxic UK press.

Would you say Brooklyn Beckham is important?

Because he too gets lots of attention from the 'toxic' press. Some of which, just like Harry, he actively seeks out.

I don’t think Brooklyn Beckham is important to me or most other people at all. He’s the son of a footballer. Do I think he deserves to be scrutinised by the press? No. Other than being the child of rich parents, what does he do that deserves to be scrutinised?

This is such a great post. So many posters on this forum were not happy he won the action against The Mirror.

Despite the MET police having a horrific history of corruption, and papers having a horrific history of illegal behaviour warranting an inquiry and prison sentences, where PH is concerned these are apparently very unlikely things to have happened and it’s all because he’s a spoilt brat.

It’s about Hugh Grant

My point is that just being a subject of gossip does not mean you are 'important'.

If you freely share aspects of your personal life with the public, as both Harry and Brooklyn do, then obviously you will be 'scrutinised'. The alternative is not to make your life into a commodity for public consumption.

@IcedPurple some posters have decided he is important (only in relation to press intrusion being warranted). In any other circumstance he’s not deemed important (yet posters obsess over every little thing he does despite him not being important).

Brooklyn Beckham is just the son of a footballer. He could have lived a private life as an adult if he wanted but he put himself on social media and is active on it. I get he resents how much his parents exposed him to the press growing up but he has a choice now. He has massively blown up his life with his instagram post. He’s put himself in the public eye so he will be scrutinised.

@IcedPurple

Do you post anything at all on social media?

Do you "do" Facebook, Insta, What's App...

I mean - I understand that when film people, music people, politicians, or anyone in public life shares some of their life experiences, they still have the right to go home and close their front door.

I do not have any expectation of following them into their house, joining them for dinner or going through their underwear drawer just because they shared a little due to their job/persona.

I can't speak for 'some posters'. I can only speak for myself. I'm not interested in getting into a spat about what random 'other posters' say. I'm not responsible for them.

From my perspective:
I am happy that Harry won against the Mirror Group - there was evidence that was tested in court.
He settled out of court against NGN. I found his behaviour and that of his lawyer a bit questionable on that occasion.
Currently, having followed the reporting and looked at some of the pre-trial judgements, I am very interested to see what evidence there is of unlawful information gathering in these cases. If there is evidence, I will be content that he wins.

Where I find Harry's protests about privacy difficult is that both in books and in court documents he has breached the privacy of family members.