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?

It does seem that Sherbourne has now made it his career to pursue news agencies for illegal practices. ANL is the big hold-out - never admitted to Leveson that it had done anything illegal.

If this current action succeeds in establishing that ANL also did dirty stuff (and I believe hard evidence is not required, only balance of probability) then ANL will go the way of the other two agencies and have to establish a fund to compensate claimants. With lawyers creaming off a big percentage, and claimants able to start the limitations clock from the time of the verdict.

And once it has been established that the three big agencies were at it, and that it was thus industry practice - well, the BBC, ITV and all the news channels operating in the 2000s will be next.

Of bank wins, then they can waft around looking angelic.

I want to know if LH submitted photos of the window microphones.

I wasn't clear from her evidence whether she actually saw them or that she read about them in the disputed Gavin Burrows statement.

But if they were there it is unclear whether she called the police or photographed them - which would be a natural reaction.

Are the journalists who wrote the stories going to testify?

ANL is the big hold-out - never admitted to Leveson that it had done anything illegal

So possibly it didn't do anything illegal?

How much money are the individuals risking buy bringing this case?

Is it possible that ANL haven't offered to settle (and thus the case is continuing against what Harry etc had planned) because they knew they hadn't done anything illegal?

My husband made the point it could be parabolic mics - so not physical small devices placed on the window, but someone standing on the street pointing it up.

But again, why would you not photograph this or call the Police if you saw this at the time?

Which makes me think it is based on Burrows now disputed statement.

All comes down to if ANL journos can provide reasonable other sources for their stories.

Harry claims he knew nothing about hacking/Leveson - yet his brother involved the Met as early as 2005 which kicked off the whole NOTW scandal - but Harry claims to have been totally unaware

Beyond credibility isn't it @Lunde?

I suppose Harry could say that was a different rag and it was ANL specifically he didn't know about, or claim once again that it was an establishment stitch up not to tell him, but whether anyone would believe him is unknowable

If ANL had settled, they would have been admitting guilt, and would then have needed to go the way of the other two news agencies and set up a very large fund to handle the claims that would then flood in from anyone the lawyers deemed stood a chance. The alternative would have been a decade or more of litigation - even more expensive.

ANL, by not settling, are setting the risk of the costs (which they won't have to pay if they win) against the cost of such an enormous slush fund and a decade of litigation.

The claimants were led to believe that they have strong enough evidence on the balance of probabilities to win, so they are risking having to pay (what has become) an enormous costs bill, but are hoping to win a payday and a moral victory.

The lawyers for the claimants win whichever way it goes. If they lose, they still get paid. If they win, they not only get paid but also establish a lucrative stream of revenue for the next decade.

I suspect that the claimants have strong buyer's regret right now.

Thank you @Rhaidimiddim

ANL, by not settling, are setting the risk of the costs (which they won't have to pay if they win) against the cost of such an enormous slush fund and a decade of litigation.

For me this is particularly interesting, because I wondered if the claimants has been expecting an easy pay out. But ANL financially are better off fighting it, although that means they may have chosen to fight it knowing they had done some dubious things because it was a risk worth taking.

If ANL had settled, they would have been admitting guilt

No doubt that would be so in the "court of public opinion" @Rhaidimiddim, but while I'm very ready to be corrected here I thought settlements of civil cases usually came with a rider about not accepting responsibility or something?

As said though I might easily be wrong, in which case ignore me

Whether ANL did illegal stuff or not, they will have looked at Sherborne's evidence and thought that the judge would rule that, on the balance of probabilities, the charges couldn't be proven. So let's risk it!

ETA - IANAL and all the above (this post and my previous musings) is just supposition.

Well, that's my theory stuffed.

My husband made the point it could be parabolic mics - so not physical small devices placed on the window, but someone standing on the street pointing it up.

That would make sense @MrsFinkelstein.

However, her witness statement said 'placing surreptitious mics on my home windows' which sounds more like something being directly there.

Having said that, her statement also talks about the allegation that her home landlines had been tapped leaving her "devastated", which to me sounds like she was told about it later, hence no photos.

Yes this seems to be the irrelevant emotional entanglement that has both amplified and distorted ‘facts and timelines’ - bit like BB’s twisted characterisation of his situation whipped up by his histrionic wife. But at least BB/NP were together at the time.

Sherbourne will always the winner here - he hand selected some easily manipulated ‘useful idiots’ who all are self aggrandising egotistical ‘spares’ - none were the ‘main character’ in their own lives.

My thought for the last couple of weeks is that Harry fully expected ANL to settle. Because that's what the defendants did in most of the other cases. Possibly thrown him completely to actually appear in court like an ordinary person and - be questioned about this. How very dare they.

Baroness Lawrence may possibly have been pulled into this with Harry assuring her that it wouldn't go to court. Let's not forget Harry once declared that 'his truth' is more valid than 'so-called objective facts'.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at their lunch a few days ago!

The amount of costs is eye watering. Obscene.

The judge has already commented about payments to witnesses, I hope that comes out over the next few weeks.
Harry has no concept of money, he said himself he never even paid for his own phone. He was imo hoping for another payday because these days its his only stream of income.
The claimants are now forced to turn up to court hoping for a decision in their favour because ANL didn't blink first. If they are unsuccessful then the financial fallout could be disastrous for them.
(I have worked for solicitors in the past. Met a few David Sherbourne types).

If we can believe X , DL wants to pull out and Harry is putting pressure on her .
I suppose we will find out tomorrow.

Settlement doesn’t have to come with an admission of liability and settlement could be agreeing to pay something or equally allowing a party to discontinue proceedings without pushing for costs. It can literally be anything and it will be confidential.

The claimants have managed to take out legal insurance for this case - £14 million if they all lose and individually £2.35 million. However the Judge warned in December that the way that costs have spiralled to £38 million, the insurance may be woefully inadequate. If some win and others lose - the losers will have much bigger bills.

Article from the Telegraph
https://archive.is/BJTol

The only witness statement I want to hear is from DL.
She’s not part of the world of the others where their egos rule their heads.
Therefore I’d like to think that her evidence would be the closest to the truth that we’re likely to get

Yes I would be interested as well. The DM did fight for years to get justice in the SL case so it would be interesting to know why they were hacking/spying on DL. It’s reminiscent of Sarah Payne’s mum and Rebekah Brooks.

Those are for adverse costs i.e they lose and are ordered to pay ANL so I assume the £38m costs are the Defendants or a combination of the Claimants and Defendants.

Obviously it’s in the media’s interest to make it sound like the Claimants have incurred all of those costs.

Without having a clue about legal matters, Elizabeth Hurley's evidence of timing for when she found out, seems to be the most unbelievable so far. I think so far she looks to be the one most screwed from this.

I wonder whether her opinion on H has changed as a result of developments involvimg African Parks and Sentebale since he first contacted her about this case.

Well, quite. I mean, wtf has Meghan got to do with Chelsy Davy and H’s previous love interest ‘Natalie’?

In fact it suggests his recent woes involving an apparently unhappy wife are driving him to retrofit current misery into those past times he can barely remember.

Yes, ANL are better off fighting the case either way, and I think a few of the claimants may have not fully appreciated this.