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?

You beat me to it !!

I can’t post a link ( don’t know how) but the bbc footage shows no armed security, Harry’s bodyguard is greeted ( in a familiar, friendly manner) by a police officer, then Harry shakes hands with a man I don’t recognise and they walk into the building!

I don’t think it was even a police officer, looks like a court security officer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/s/RqLsUUC3wY

apologies only link I can find that might work !

Think the guy in the tweed jacket is a solicitor .Just checked . He is Callum Galbraith , Solicitor.,

Wonder where he is staying in this unsafe country ?

I heard rumour BP but no idea where that has come from so not sure I believe it.

I have noticed that there are no crowds, nobody except journalists.

It didn't look like it, the area was cordoned off and it was only his car driving up to the steps of the courthouse, so unless there was security and they stopped before the cordon and where Harry exited his car. There were two policemen, not sure if they were Met police or court security police.

Harry looks in better shape than his private security guy !!

Just catching up as I've been busy this morning

Link to the live commentary on BBC if anyone wants
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czx14ee79ndt

Unimpressed by the BBC article from yesterday which they linked through to
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0ny6p62d5o
Quote 'But the no-nonsense judge presiding over these often ill-tempered proceedings is desperate to stop them turning into a "public inquiry". Last year, he ruled that he wouldn't accept these "generic" claims.
In short, the big seven must make their case, allegation by allegation. Team Harry begins this trial with one hand tied behind its back.'

No, BBC - Team Harry (or rather, Team 7 claimants) begins this trial on the basis of everyone else in a civil case: having to prove their case against the defendant.

In an article i read this morning they said Harry was complaining about stuff relating to Chelsea Davy. I'm not confused about timelines.

I read that he is claiming private conversations with William were obtained illegally however I am sure I saw an article stating that Harry was not allowed to use any evidence which included William .
Anyone ?

I think at one point he tried to bring in other articles involving William and Catherine (and not himself) as evidence, and was told he couldn't use evidence about other people (that didn't involve him) - the judge was unimpressed by Sherborne effectively trawling through to try to prove that hacking was going on in general.

I’m hugely naive when it comes to court proceedings, but do the claimants have to prove that they suffered harm from these actions, or is it just based on the legality how the information was gathered?
Much of what I’ve read so far doesn’t seem particularly strong.
ive always assumed that journalists would employ investigators for information and that it was how they used that information would be the slam dunk.

Sounds so far to me that the newspaper has an awful lot of room to claim plausible deniability that sources they employed were acting unethically.

all of this not withstanding, I think papers have breached moral standing many times.
sounds like the plaintiffs are using this court case to bash media in its totality.

someone make it make sense please

They must be expecting it to go badly because she’s posting all sorts of perfect life distraction videos on her IG … presumable to instigate some sort of “take that haters” type rebuke.

@drivinmecrazy Someone can correct me (please do!) but I think in this case, because unlawful information gathering (UIG) is illegal activity, they just need to prove it happened, not that there was significant harm caused.
The standard of proof is lower because it's a civil case (balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt) and the burden of proof is on the claimants.

Certainly for Harry it's been a campaign. This is the last in a series of 3 legal cases - he won the first against Mirror Group, settled out of court with News Group.

At the time of the Leveson Inquiry, Paul Dacre (DM Editor I think) said their internal inquiry had shown no use of illegal activity.

I’d gathered that Dacres evidence will be quite crucial.
the media is quite a scurrilous industry so would love these practices to be called out for what they are.
But I think that’s already been proven and practises changed. So cannot see what this case will achieve in real terms.
Apart from more click bait articles and so the circle continues.

I know this is a very trivial point - sue me!* - but I really hadn't realised how very bald Harry is now, apart from that little strip across the front of his scalp. Presumably he just sees that when looking in the mirror and can't see the absolute lack of hair after it.
I've nothing against baldness (DH went bald early and I shave his head for him) but H probably was unwise to go on about his brother's baldness as "alarming" bearing in mind he and W share the same heritage.
And where is all the hair he's sporting in things like the recent dancing video coming from?

*No don't. I'm not rich and none of it looks like fun.

@LaMarschallin you can Photoshop videos. Plus the dancing videos are b&w which is much more forgiving

I find it very funny. He’s turned up for something where he wants to be taken seriously and all people are talking about is how bald he is… because he has gone to such lengths to pretend he isn’t, and to insult his brother.

Suspect next law suit will be “they published pics that made me look bald, wahhhh”

Press will be loving it and publishing all the bald spots they can!

True. It just seems unwise to add so much hair in a video that was released just before there were going to be un-photoshopped pictures in the press.
Especially as the dancing video was supposed to be showing us H&M in 2026 compared with them in 2016, as per the trend.
Good point about the B&W.
So maybe not just to try to look "classy" then...

H apparently didn’t have to show up in court today but he did. Do we think it’s because he’s got nothing better to do, wants his picture in the papers or he thinks his royal physical presence will influence the judge?

All the above.

Agreed.

I concur!