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?

Antony White now turns to a meeting between Sadie Frost, her lawyer and Dr Evan Harris in April 2016.
He asks the actress whether she was shown any evidence during the meeting that she had a potential claim against the Mail's publisher.
Frost says she wasn't, and that if she had been, she would have taken action.
But White suggests if it was the case that no evidence was presented, Frost and her lawyer would have pushed back and asked what Harris was referring to in his previous correspondence.
"I can only tell you exactly what I know and I feel, I was shown no evidence otherwise I would have done something about it," she adds.

I wonder if they've had to disclose minutes of that meeting?

Frost says at the time, she wasn't too familiar with what Hacked Off was, but knew its association to Grant and that it was "trying to do good things".

Trying to do good things....exactly same thing hurley said! its an odd statement and noticeably the same. Hurley also used a few of harrys specifics, sounds like all together in a room with a crib sheet!
If I was going up against a KC with deep client pockets I would have chapter & verse not feelings. I think pp are right in they expected a pay day, they didnt think it would go to court.

With regard to her medical info/eptopic pregnancy she wrote a book about it to help support others few years later but strange it wasnt published but she is unhappy about it. Another day of very little in the way of evidence.

Antony White, representing ANL, continues to question Sadie Frost over her 2016 meeting with Dr Evan Harris.
In his witness statement, Harris says he was offering to show Frost evidence pointing to a potential claim, and would have had emails in mind.
Those emails, White says, were between a freelance journalist and a journalist at the Mail on Sunday and contained voicemails left by Frost's nanny Jade Schmidt in early 2006.
"I cannot believe what you're trying to suggest, I didn't see the emails until I saw the Byline article," Frost says, referring to a piece published in 2019.
White continues to suggest that Frost was told in the meeting she had a potential claim.
"I was asking that question but I wasn't shown any evidence," she says.
"I was told there was no action to be taken, they were going to go and do more research."
"I'm getting tired now," she says.

ANL obviously have proof!! , this isn’t looking good for them.( Sherborne)

White continues to suggest that Frost was told in the meeting she had a potential claim.
"I was asking that question but I wasn't shown any evidence," she says.
"I was told there was no action to be taken, they were going to go and do more research."

Surely even admitting this means that she knew something about it at that time (2016), i.e. too early to bring this case now?

Didn't she have her book serialized in the MoS?

It seems an odd decision to sell book extracts to the newspaper you claim illegally accessed your medical records a few years earlier!

Thank you @bluegreygreen for keeping us updated

SF is clearly on very dodgy ground

The more I hear - the more I think there are 2 groups of claimants here

There is an inner circle who have been working with Hacked Off for over a decade and knew about the cases before the cut off. LH, SF and probably EJ and DF given their close relationship with Sherborne

Then there is the outer circle - much higher profile who were recruited by the inner circle persuaded to join the case on the basis of being told about evidence by Hacked Off ... Harry is in this group but is good for getting media attention - possibly Baroness Lawrence as well.

The more I read, the more convinced I am that all these people were only in this for the payout when ANL settled out of court.

After all that's how every other hacking case has gone.
But ANL aren't playing that game so here they all are, squirming in the witness box hoping that the judge will beleive their backpedalling and arsecovering answers.
Its quite extraordinary to read the feeble excuses regarding their apparent complete innocence around the Hacked Off organisation.

I'm staggered by the number of celebrities who had no idea what Hacked Off was about, even though they gave them money and socialised with them. The rest of us did with no such advantages!

and from me, getting bite size pieces are easier to digest than reams of stuff which I zone out on.

Until the sentabale shit storm I didnt even know there was a royal board on mumsnet!! I am not keen on MSM coverage on royals it numbs my brain.
Big thank you from me xx

A question for those who have gone into the matter more thoroughly than I have, please.

Why, do we think, did Hacked Off and their lawyers not move to sue ANL in 2016? They were lining up potential claimants and appeared to have mounting evidence at that point.

I’m not honestly sure here but my take is that they don’t have concrete evidence that ANL got these stories illegally, assuming and feelings and that’s what others have done are not actually proof .

Yes and PH and BL would have been targeted and recruited specifically to ‘scare the horses’ as in they would generate huge publicity and public sympathy (remember this was 2019 when PH had huge public affection) - due to their perceived integrity and place in the public heart at that time - so this would put the wind up ANL and they would be more likely to settle to avoid backlash than if it were the just the other no-marks with zero public affection (possibly even contempt) SF, LH and DF

That's a good question @Rhaidimiddim - it does make me wonder if the evidence they had at the time wasn't sufficient to convince the people they were speaking to.

We know that up to 2019 William and Harry were bringing a joint legal case about hacking against NGN (William went on to settle in 2020). I have always assumed they would have discussed any evidence there was against other groups during that time.

You're welcome, people ☺️

Antony White picks up where we left off, focusing on a meeting between Sadie Frost, her lawyer and Hacked Off chief Dr Evan Harris on 14 April 2016.
Frost says after the meeting, her lawyer Mark Thompson "told me there was no action to be taken at that time, I don't question his authority or his job".
The court is shown an email sent to Harris and Hacked Off supporter Hugh Grant the day after their meeting.
"On the evidence that we have unearthed, Sadie Frost met with Evan and an eccentric lawyer yesterday and agreed to launch an action against the MOS (Mail on Sunday)," it reads.
White says that this suggested two things:

1. The meeting considered the evidence of the 2006 emails - which we explained in our 13.12 post
2. Upon consideration, it was agreed to launch an action against Mail on Sunday

Frost once again rejects this, and insists "it felt like a very fleeting meeting". Reminder: This line of questioning forms part of ANL's argument that claimants have brought their case too long after the October 2016 cut-off date for legal action. The claimants say they were not aware they had a potential claim until after this date.

Sadie is digging deep in the 💩

We're still hearing about Dr Evan Harris's communication with Sadie Frost in April 2016, including an email saying print articles containing allegedly unlawfully gathered information could be dug out from archives in case online articles had been deleted.
Frost once again denies that she saw any evidence of a potential claim against the Mail's publisher in April 2016.
"As soon as I saw the evidence I acted swiftly... I didn't see any evidence, I can't say it again," she says.
At the time, she says "it wasn't realistic that I could start progressing this case, I didn't have that advice from my lawyer".
"I seem to be in trouble when actually, I'm telling you the truth," she adds.

Oh dear Sadie, I hope you can afford those costs because it doesn’t like you’re onto a winner here.

Now we know why DL is getting cold feet!

Playing the victim when unable to explain the timeline coherently.

They should have settled before court.