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?

Yes I feel so sorry for Doreen Lawrence being dragged/ used by Harry in his little crusade. I can’t see her having a lot of money, enough to cover costs if she loses.

Hmm. At the very least it makes their case look confused and a bit amateurish 🤷‍♀️

If Doreen Lawrence joined Harry on the basis of being fed false information, it’s like Diana and Bashir but instead of being Diana he’s taken on a role more akin to Bashir.

I hope Doreen Lawrence can refuse to pay Sherborne on the basis he’s full of shit.

I think Harry is using Doreen Lawrence (at an attempted arm’s length of course, via ‘his team’), to try to harness the sympathy and admiration most people feel for her and rub some of that shine onto his shitshow of a case.

Baroness Lawrence is the perfect co-litigant as far as Harry’s concerned. Titled, yet someone who elicits huge sympathy; an authority figure known for tackling structural racism; someone who is listened to when they make political statements; and the victim who fought back and (supposedly) changed institutions.

She is what Harry aspires to be in his own head. DL’s presence in this was so essential, if she’d not existed he and Sherborne would have had to invent her. Co-incidentally and very luckily for Harry’s case, she was persuaded on board by evidence that now seems to be proving extremely problematic under legal test.

The documentary that was on TV the other day made it clear how the DM/MoS were instrumental in securing convictions for the murderers. If they didn't target DL, they have really 'done her wrong' encouraging her to diss them.

Completely agree. I remember the photos on the front page.

“The newspaper took the extraordinary risk of libel action to pressure the authorities and bring attention to the case, following a failed private prosecution by Stephen's family and a bungled police investigation”.

Now Baroness Lawrence has somehow been persuaded to join ‘Team Harry’ . He should have his Prince/Duke of Sussex titles taken away. So much for him and his wife wanting privacy. Things are about to become very public.

I clearly remember that front page with the headline saying “if we are wrong , sue us “
They didn’t sue.

Yes everyone loves to slate the Mail, but they led the way on getting justice for the Lawrence’s. And they are doing sterling work in the trans vs women’s rights.

A reminder of the article

I thought he said he wasn't working for the DM, was he working for another tabloid?

I haven't been keeping up with this over the last couple of weeks but did come across this article a couple of days ago

https://archive.ph/ukwET

The Sussex team, in the person of Graham Johnson, were clearly putting considerable pressure on the private investigator Mulcaire (to the extent of 'threats') but were not able to persuade him to agree to their demands.

Haven’t been really following this but find this particular issue quite interesting.

Have the claimants responded to the suggestion that the signature on the statement was forged ? Is it suggested that the claimant / lawyers were responsible for drafting it?

Why if he retracted it in 2023 is he making a statement now? Is it because in 2023, he made the statement with the help of the defendants and is now doing so independently?

He sounds like a thoroughly awful witness whether he’s telling the truth now or then.

One final question - has this all come up because they had a pre-trial review or something like that? And witnesses were being discussed?

I wondered that too.

@kirinm The last paragraph of the latest link I posted referred to it again

But solicitors working for the claimants have produced signed affidavits with matching signatures. They said Mr Burrows sent his admissions to Mr Johnson via a link to a Google document with a recorded version history, which they claimed made it “impossible” to be switched to a forged document.

I agree that he's not a witness I'd like to be depending on in court.

Press Gazette story

https://archive.is/2BBuX

Thank you for the excellent link, @bluegreygreen; that puts the whole thing together in a better way than I've seen elsewhere, and incidentally seems to show what an utter mess this is becoming

Wonder what "PR Liam" will have to say this time ...

Harry expected to be first witness on 19th January

https://archive.is/NqeX9

Hard to avoid the impression that the point of that article was to emphasis that Harry has lots of dates in his diary, even if they are only "pencilled in." I'm not sure about the legal validity of a "show of strength" either. Don't they need evidence?

Yes, it's not like the defendants are going to be intimidated by the row of people sitting there!

His return to the UK may prove to be his last without taxpayer-funded security.

Annoying comment in the Telegraph article above.

He gets taxpayer funded security now! He's never not had it.

He certainly had a motorcade of police cars when he came for his "mercy dash" to see Charles on the 5th-7th of February 2024

Coincidently his case against the Mirror was suddenly announced as settled on the morning of February 9th - so perhaps his visit had more to do with legal meetings....

He did - also proving that it can be flexible for emergencies, even though he usually needs to give notice.

(Thanks for joining us @Lunde)

For those who haven’t seen it

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-prince-vs-the-paper-dispatches

Look out for Evan Harris’ email (the joke who has been mooching off Hugh Grant for years). He is advising ‘victims’ how to get around the 6 year time limit. I wonder if that is legal 🤔

Any information the Daily Mail reported on could easily have been obtained by disgruntled employees - many of which attend this ‘club’

www.aca-uk.com/

which has no checks if employees have been dismissed in disgrace - or if they have left because working for a high maintenance celebrity/Prince Harry equivalent is intolerable and the ex employee has an axe to grind.

The club is contacted with jobs with the Royal Family and celebrities etc and they are offered to members with no checks. It is seen as a selective way to recruit - can you imagine how many applicants the likes of Elton John would get if he needed a new personal assistant.

Members are wined and dined by exclusive hotels/restaurants hoping it will lead to business from the celebrities/HNWI - so the booze is flowing freely and chat is getting chattier.

I hope justice prevails. The press is already gagged by these self-servers pretending they are on a crusade for justice and the ordinary man/woman in the street.

Thanks for the heads-up re the programme.

Interesting 'club' or networking organisation. While it may be a useful source of suitable recruits, I can't see anyone being employed in the Royal Household with no checks - apart from the security issues, don't they come under the Civil Service for employment rules?