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

Chat GPT is not really answering a relevant question here as the parties are in the middle of a trial but an application has been filed (unclear by whom) with a different judge.

On pushing ChatGPT further, the main thrust seems to be about how the claimants work together.

When I asked about this coming mid-trial under a different judge, here's the answer (followed by reams and reams):

Ah — that changes the texture of it quite a bit.
When an application comes mid-trial and is being heard by a different judge in the High Court, the directions hearing is really about damage control and continuity, not just routine case management.

Hmmm not looking good is it?

For whom? Claimants or ANL?

Am I the only person who is quite confused about this case ?
Claimants seem ill- prepared and the Judge had to warn SH ( a barrister!) about incriminating himself!

I’m thinking from what’s been reported and the warning from the judge to SH, the claimants. The timelines for all are dodgy.

Just catching up - thanks all for the updates.

It seems like quite a significant thing to have a directions hearing under a different judge in the middle of a trial - would be grateful if one of our knowledgeable people who could suggest reasons why that might happen (in general, if not wanting to comment specifically on this case).

That is interesting. Could be an application for anything - amending pleadings / witness or disclosure related. Would be interesting to know which side made the application.

Thanks @kirinm (crossposted with my edit)

Would that usually be with a separate judge?

A directions hearing is a hearing to set out a timetable in respect of a claim. They are usually held fairly early on but in larger cases, directions will likely be varied over time and you can have multiple hearings (case management conferences).

This hearing is going to be a timetable for the application someone has made which might mean that the trial has to be adjourned.

If it is adjourned does that come with greater costs?

But still why has is this not being reported in the news?

I don’t actually know. It’s just directions so think of it as just sorting out the timetable. It’s not like it being a different judge makes a big difference. But honestly, not something I’ve had experience of.

Yeah adjourning the trial would cost a lot. It is listed for 9 weeks so they may have enough time to deal with a short adjournment which wouldn’t necessarily increase costs too much.

It might be that the application isn’t linked at all.

Thank you @kirinm.

Yes, I've followed some of the case management hearings (or at lease the judgements from them) in this case. I hadn't realised it could happen in the middle of a trial.

So from your post at 20:28 - if either side suddenly wanted to introduce an additional witness or additional evidence, would that require an application? (Not that they should, given how long the process has already taken.)

Or if ANL decided that they did want to 'plead' something such as conspiracy (which they were not allowed to put into the opening statement) - would that require an application?

Yes basically - I don’t think they’d be allowed to suddenly call a witness who hasn’t already prepared a statement but it could be witness related. It could also be pleadings related (so amending a case). Whether the other side can oppose the application depends on what it is about. Certain applications are a matter for the court only and they won’t take into account the view of the other party. They still have to persuade the court though.

It was really odd today that there was no hearing or evidence without warning or explanation.

Thank you again @kirinm - appreciate your comments on the thread

Apologies if this has already been posted . Have been on Granny duty again and a tad frazzled.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15507015/Ex-MP-denies-paying-witnesses-evidence-against-Daily-Mails-publisher-privacy-claim.html

Wow - so he did give evidence but nobody covered it?

Very strange

They really are as disgusting as the gutter press they complain about!

In his email to Mr Grant, Dr Harris wrote he had been ‘contacting victims to persuade them to instruct lawyers to sue the a* off the Mail’.

He said: ‘We have so far got Heather Mills, Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost in the frame.’

Dr Harris wrote he had ‘a potential Gary Lineker angle, adding: ‘I am sorry he has no dead children but at least he is a national treasure.’

And there it is - the political objective!

But they needed to find well-known figures who would attract public support for their calls for the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards to be reopened, he said.
High-profile legal action against newspaper groups formed part of that strategy, Dr Harris told the High Court.

Cash for witnesses???

They included convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire, who was paid £22,329.50 as part of the group’s research into alleged misconduct at The Mail On Sunday and the Daily Mail, which the newspapers deny.

Dr Harris said he had made no payments himself, and said his role had been to approach potential victims of alleged Press misconduct to persuade them ‘to sue the arse off the Mail’.

.......
Mr Mosley suggested he could meet with Mulcaire and ‘try to tempt him’, adding: ‘I could make very clear: no tickee, no monkee.’

Mr White suggested Mr Mosley, who died in 2021, was proposing to pay Mulcaire to change his account.

Dr Harris replied: ‘I think he is suggesting that if he [Mulcaire] was offered a reward - which I assume is a job or remuneration - then he might be more forthcoming.’

Asked yesterday what the ‘no tickee’ phrase meant, Dr Harris said: ‘It means if you don’t produce you don’t get paid.’

Archive link to Harris story https://archive.ph/VDjFe

In his email to Mr Grant, Dr Harris wrote he had been ‘contacting victims to persuade them to instruct lawyers to sue the a* off the Mail’.
He said: ‘We have so far got Heather Mills, Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost in the frame.’

The email was March 2016, so SH & SF are clearly caught out of the limitation time (before October 2016).

Yes, @Lunde - clear political objective and cash for witnesses.

So was there no reporting, and the DM has covered it from inside knowledge?

Telegraph link

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/002d0193133924e3

Odd that Sky that had been reporting live had no livestream today for such a crucial witness - I kept refreshing all day.

Perhaps they are only covering the "celebrity" witnesses live.

This has some very interesting snippets - much tougher tone compared to the Mail article but raises some troubling questions for the plaintiffs

Hacked Off pursuing political goals (can see why they wanted Harry)
Dr Harris admitted that they struggled to generate much media or political interest to support their cause and that Mr Grant felt the public was “Leveson’d out” following Sir Brian Leveson’s 2011-2012 public inquiry into press ethics, at which Milly Dowler’s parents gave evidence.

The Associated trial does not directly involve Mr Grant or Hacked Off, but the campaign group has been praised in court by Prince Harry.

When the Duke gave evidence last week, he said: “I happen to think they do fantastic work.”

Antony White KC, for Associated, said in written submissions that Dr Harris’s email to Mr Grant offered “a striking insight” into the research team’s “methods and objectives” and its motives in selecting potential claimants.

The reference to Mr Lineker having no dead children “speaks for itself”, he added.

Cash for witnesses
Meanwhile, Dr Harris admitted that Graham Johnson, a fellow member of his research team and a convicted phone hacker, had paid witnesses for information.

The court was told that he had brought the late Max Mosley, son of fascist Oswald Mosley, on board to help fund the campaign. Mosley told Dr Harris in April 2015 that Mulcaire had “consistently denied” hacking for the Mail.

However, he suggested that he could meet Mulcaire to “try to tempt him”, adding in an email: “I could make very clear: no tickee no monkee?”

It then heard that Mr Johnson subsequently paid Mulcaire a total of £22,329.
Mr White suggested to Dr Harris that the material Mulcaire started to provide “coincided with the start of him being paid to cooperate”.

Timeline manipulation (possibly implicating Sherborne)
The barrister has argued that Sir Simon and Ms Frost could reasonably have known they had a potential claim before the legal cut-off date of October 2016, which would invalidate their claim against the Mail.

Dr Harris said in his witness statement that an email sent to Ms Frost in March 2016 about alleged hacking by the Mail on Sunday concerned “campaigning activity rather than litigation”.

The court was also shown an email he sent to David Sherborne, the claimants’ barrister, in February 2016, stating that he needed to speak to him “urgently” about “Daily Mail hacking”.

Sir Simon, a fellow former Liberal Democrat MP and “mate” of Dr Harris, insisted when giving evidence on Tuesday that he had not known he had a potential claim until March 2019.