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?

No you're not alone, MrsLF

Even to a layperson this whole thing lookss a stinking mess, and frankly I've very little sympathy for anyone who may have been attracted to add their names because of Harry's "high profile" - even the sainted Doreen Lawrence, who needs to realise Harry would kick her too into touch if it suited

Even to a layperson this whole thing looks a stinking mess

Agree.

For me, even apart from all the very dubious parts about timing and witnesses, I was questioning things because of the judge's warnings to the claimants through the whole process
-telling Sherborne he shouldn't be trawling for data from unrelated cases
-warning the claimants' team that they needed to be transparent about payments, as the defendants could suggest they were paying (bribing) witnesses
-warning the claimants that costs were escalating and they needed to make sure they were able to cover them

IF the evidence is fabricated / the first witness statement was fraudulent, then it isn’t the individual litigants responsible for ‘recruiting’. The individual litigants all acted in good faith on the basis of the evidence they saw.

I just want to know when a judge is going to tell PH to stop wasting court time

It's the judge's warning about costs which really interested me, @bluegreygreen, and it's important to remember it was the plaintiffs' costs he was referring to, calling them (if memory serves) "manifestly disproportionate" and "clearly outside the range of the reasonable"

However IF the case doesn't go Harry's way, I can quite see him pretending the remarks referred to anything he might be expected to pay himself

Presumably you want the court to say that to all of the claimants?

Well, yes, if they are wasting the courts time.

The courts deal with legal.issues, not morality. There's an overlap, of course, but they aren't exactly the same.

If they were wasting the courts time, the defendants could’ve applied to strike the claims out. If there’s really no prospects of the claimants’ case succeeding then the court could strike out.

So presumably they aren't wasting the court's time

I wasn’t the one who suggested they are. One poster just hopes Prince Harry is accused of wasting the courts time. Some posters are so consumed with hoping for the worst for him that they forget that it applies to every other claimant.

I can’t work out from the Telegraph if there’s a risk of Doreen Lawrence being personally placed in financial jeopardy should all the claimants lose.

She’s comfortably off but not wealthy.

I think that the fact that the costs have reached an eye-watering £38 million means considerable financial risk for the plaintiffs - I think the judge has warned both sides that even if they were to win that they would not recover "excessive" costs.

IIRC Hugh Grant decided to settle one of the previous cases (NGN) because of the risk of a personal liability for £millions in costs even if he won.

The only winners in these cases are the lawyers - especially Sherborne who seems to run up huge costs in his celebrity cases.

I hope she took appropriate action after the judge's warning.

As we discussed upthread, if the claimants lose their case they have 3 types of costs to pay
-ANL costs - even if not ones deemed 'excessive'
-combined costs - for the costs involved in the 'group' aspect of the case
-individual costs

While it's a group action, each case stands on its own merits. If some of the claimants win, that leaves fewer left to pay the (large) combined costs.

I thought ANL did apply to strike out - around 18 month ago? Based on expiry of the limitation period. The judge didn't grant the strike out, but said that limitation of actions is still on the table. I believe it has since come to light that there's some jiggery pokery involving the ByLine Times and stories being published there to try to get around the Limitation Act. And then there has been Burrows reverse ferreting. I imagine ANL have waited for the case to be withdrawn or go to trial where it will probably collapse for lack of evidence.

I think ANL don't need to apply for a further strike out if the case is simply going fall apart due to Burrows withdrawing his evidence, and they get a judgment that there is zero evidence that they were involved in hacking. They will get the result they want and probably put the kibosh on any future claimants coming forward.

In the trial against the Sun, one of the claimants were found to have been hacked, but also found to have known about the claim over 6 years before starting the action and was therefore timed out under the Limitation Act. Another failed to beat a part 36 settlement offer. Both were badly advised, imo, by the same legal team.

Of course you have to remember. If you were asked what you had for dinner on 25th March 2022, your recollection might be hazy. It is stressful knowing your responses will be scrutinised.

I hope they are all accused of wasting court time.

I feel sorry for Doreen Lawrence. She felt betrayed by the DM who she had trusted.

Sadie Frost seems to have lied and been caught out about when she discovered she could have been hacked.

I don’t think any of them are going to come out of this well.

Which is very sad.

The timeline on the whole thing absolutely reeks - it seems very very clear that the evidence about the “discovery” for almost all parties has been deliberately manipulated to try and get around the 6 year limitation.

It will be very interesting to watch how this unfolds, but from what we’ve seen it would be a bit of a travesty for this case to succeed.

Looking at the case, I’m reading into it that the ‘hackers’ had no evidence but found it a very lucrative business to be ‘ searching for the truth’. They expected the DM and the plaintiffs to settle so never worries about potential perjury issues

It will be interesting to see what evidence was presented to the plaintiffs, as by whom, whether they fully accepted it or had any niggling doubts.

The DM are shits, complete misogynistic, authoritarian racists shits, and I’d love them to get a kick up the arse. But I’m not seeing any evidence of criminality on their side on the evidence presented so far.

I’m just seeing a bunch of fleecing scammers and honestly I’m not sure whether to include Sherborne in that list at the moment

I haven’t been following that closely, so would appreciate any insights into the trial

BBC breaking news is that Harry has arrived, somewhere. I didn't click on it. No wonder he gets confused about his status. News is the content of the case or the result, not someone turning up at a place they were expected.

His bodyguard is looking quite pudgy and exhausted. Is he the next one to be ‘exited’, I wonder. Makes me laugh how his bodyguard is as recognizable as Harry is.

How back do these claims go? It’s been ages since Sadie Frost was famous enough for the tabloids to bother with her.

Any evidence of armed police security?