Duke of Sussex & Others v ANL: thread 2

[bluegreygreen]

This is a continuation of the discussion on the previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5443044-duke-of-sussex-court-case-key-witness-statement-false?page=1

We are following the court case on the

Yet again I need a 😲

I'm assuming you can't just 'not turn up' to give evidence - wouldn't that technically be contempt of court?

I would imagine that if someone isn't giving evidence when expected to do so, there will be apologies, lawyers' meetings, rescheduling...?

Happy to hear from people who know.

Wow that’s astonishing … I’m speechless and that’s unusual!

I wonder if some witnesses are needing to seek legal advice regarding incriminating themselves criminally.

The e-mails from Hacked Off to SH showed that SH had lied on his statement (even the amended one) about discovering the ANL illegal activity in 2019 or 2020 because he had been having "preliminary meetings" since 2015-6 about suing ANL.

Also the e-mail about using the Byline Times in 2019 to create a timeline for "litigation purposes" sounds close to fraud.

The email about using Byline Times has been known about for a while - I think it was reported somewhere. I'd certainly read it before. So you'd expect key witnesses like EH would have been well-rehearsed in court training/legal briefings etc for a cross-examination on its contents and what it meant.

I can't imagine anything has come up over the last week or so that has come as a surprise to the claimants? Unless, of course, it really is as badly-prepared as it looks...

Barrister White may be arguing in camera that conspiracy to defraud may be present here, whether or not these claims succeed.

How very weird it has become.

PA's diary advisory for tomorrow - which sets out what they plan to provide coverage for, and includes court hearings - does not include this case. Again, seems odd.

Thank you @TheAutumnCrow, that could explain it.

I knew that both sides would have had disclosure of each other's evidence, so didn't see how yesterday's proceedings could come as a surprise.

I take it you would expect them cover it, even if there weren't high profile witnesses due to be appearing, @PrayForMyBum?

Apparently the practice of sending over an abundance of information and hoping that incriminating evidence is overlooked is not unusual , perhaps they were hoping that ANL would settle as easily as the other papers and no need for cross examination and that they might overlook or miss the emails.

I’m wondering if Barrister White had to hear enough being presented in court as sworn evidence in order to be able to make representations to the judge (in chambers)?

Unless it’s all just a misunderstanding and they’ve all been given a snow day … (so to speak).

Yes @bluegreygreen - and especially for the non-celebrity days when papers/news channels might not send their own staff. PA will, in general, have a court reporter in every high profile case.

Yes - wasn't there something previously about ANL being told not to put serious allegations into the opening statement @TheAutumnCrow?

Now that the witnesses have stood over these claims in court, perhaps AW KC is now allowed to make those allegations?

I wonder if there is dissent among the claimants. Some may not have fully understood the true implications of the e-mails.

It's clear that some witnesses (LH, SF, SH and we don't know about EJ) have been working on suing ANL for 10 years or more but are claiming to have only found out about alleged illegal activity in 2019-20 using the Byline Times as the basis of their discovery. It's also clear that the inner-circle were trying to recruit some higher profile claimants (Kate Moss/Heather Mills etc) as to be honest - who really cares about information, especially unpublished information about SF and SH 20-25 years after the fact.

I wonder if the late recruits - Harry and the Baroness - actually knew that this had been a WIP for years before they were approached.... were they duped?

SH was got a self incrimination warning yesterday from the judge..... Although as a lawyer he should have understood this

It would be fun however if the claimants started to sue each other

There were complaints - as recently as December IIRC that the plaintiffs had still not fully complied with disclosure. I wonder if there were hopes that late submission in a large bundle might hide some of the incriminating stuff.

The ANL lawyers wouldn't be very good if that worked!

No - but some will try to deluge their opponents with discovery documents - didn't Fife attempt that in the Sandie Peggie case?

Anyway the court list is up for tomorrow also saying a 10.30 start
https://www.court-tribunal-hearings.service.gov.uk/kings-bench-division-daily-cause-list?artefactId=f861484b-c8ac-474a-9ae7-f5b87b4075a3

All very mysterious. Unless the judge has come down with indigestion and needed a day off?!

But why has no one mentioned anything?

Injunction?

Possible

Or off the record in chambers all day.

I could understand it after listening to pampered celebrities fake sobbing over things from 25 years ago.

Scrolling down on the court list - what does this mean?

"Directions hearing for an application".

Royal Courts of Justice, Court 13
Mrs Justice Collins Rice
10:30am
KB-2022-003316
Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE v Associated Newspapers Limited
Directions hearing for an application
Unrobed

Very interesting!

In fact all of the claimants are listed if you scroll down

Bloody hell that doesn't sound good.

Here's ChatGPT's explanation:

A directions hearing is a short, procedural court hearing held to organise how a case will move forward. It’s not about deciding who wins — it’s about case management.
What usually happens at a directions hearing
The judge (or magistrate) may:

• Set deadlines for filing evidence or affidavits
• Decide what issues are actually in dispute
• Give instructions (“directions”) about:
• disclosure of documents
• witness statements
• expert evidence
• Set dates for the next hearing or final hearing
• Decide whether the matter can be resolved without a full trial

For an application If it’s a directions hearing for an application, the court is typically:

• Checking whether the application is properly filed
• Deciding how the responding party should reply
• Setting a timetable for submissions and evidence
• Determining whether the application can be decided on the papers or needs a hearing

What you should usually be prepared with

• A clear idea of what you’re asking the court to order
• Awareness of any outstanding documents or evidence
• Your availability for future dates
• Any problems or delays you want the court to manage

Directions hearings are usually brief and fairly informal, but they’re important because they shape the rest of the case.