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

I would certainly hope Sherborn waives her share of his fee if she steps down. In an interview I got the impression she hadn't seen any evidence but that Harry had told he he had. As a member of the house of lords it is not a good look being associated with this shit show.

I hope DL who has gotten legal advice that tells her she’s entitled to tell Sherborne to stick his overblown fees up his arse.

It is impossible to say at this stage - all we know is that the total costs are over £38 million

The judge has already said that he regards the costs as excessive and even if they win parties won't recover full costs.

However until the verdict comes and clarifies which claimants have won/lost and of the winning claimants how many cases they won/lost - individual liability is almost impossible to calculate as the winners will get some of their costs covered but the losers will have to pay their fees and a portion of ANLs. Back in December the judge warned that the claimants were facing significant personal liability.

For example on the Mirror Case in 2024
Harry won 15 of 33 cases - received £140,000 in damages and a portion of costs
Actor Michael Le Vell was awarded £31,650.
Other claimants, Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, had their cases dismissed as out of time and had to pay MGN's costs.

Problem is Sherborne was involved with fudging the timeline as the claimants case is that they didn't know anything about ANL hacking before 2019-20

From the Telegraph yesterday
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”.

https://archive.is/t5ejf#selection-4543.0-4546.0

So who was Sherborne representing in 2016?

Checked with DH, who is a lawyer unlike chatGPT and his opinion was the business with a second judge probably to do with disclosure, ie something one of the witnesses said has led to someone, probably ANL asking for some new or hidden evidence to be admitted.

You use a different judge so that the trial judge isn't biased if the new stuff isn't admitted. Probably something to do with Simon Hughes and probably not good for Sherborne et al.

Have been quiet on the thread today but appreciating all the comments.

I think for me this ties in with freedom of the press. I have no particular love for the Daily Mail, and if they have acted illegally think they should be brought to justice, like any other organisation.

However, I am not comfortable with 'guilt by association' - the idea that if one organisation has acted illegally the other must also have done so. I am also extremely uncomfortable with the blatant political motivation in this case.

I can also see how it linked very nicely in to Harry's preconceived biases - not just for privacy but against press freedom (witness his rants against the First Amendment in the US).

That makes a lot of sense because some of the e-mail disclosures have been gobsmacking

You use a different judge so that the trial judge isn't biased if the new stuff isn't admitted.

That makes sense - thanks @NormalAuntFanny

That would be an argument for why she joined in the first place, but there have been months (a couple of years) of pre-trial hearings, so lots of opportunity to look at evidence.
I do think she has to take some personal responsibility.

I wonder if the fact that Hugh Grant knew and didn’t disclose that his own employees had leaked sensitive information (and accepted The Sun’s part 36 offer) - and all along he has been the one who many thought was honest and reliable. If his information could be leaked, it means (and has always meant) it could happen to any/all of the others.

I know we haven't heard any of the other evidence in the case, so can't prejudge any outcome of the trial. This question is separate to that.

On the basis of what we have heard, there is clear email evidence of knowledge of a potential case of DM hacking in early 2016 for Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost. There is also email involvement of Sherborne in February 2016.

This, to my mind, means that if there was a 'decision to fudge the timeline' / 'conspiracy' / 'deception' / call it what you will Sherborne must have been involved from the start.

Would there be a basis on which to refer Sherborne to his professional body (is it the Bar Association)? I know in my work I would be referred to my professional regulator for something like this.

A very good question! And I would further say it appears obvious that SH has committed perjury on the stand, what will happen to him?

Sorry - I missed the clear evidence of hacking. Could you please repost.

DM journalists were hacked by other newspapers and got payouts.

The ‘whistleblower said they hacked DM journalists not they hacked for DM journalists.

Sorry, poor wording - clear evidence that they had knowledge of potential hacking, not clear evidence of hacking.

In other works, they were discussing hacking at DM much earlier than the date when they said they 'became aware', and earlier than the October 2016 cut-off.

I'm assuming, though, that the six year cut off for bringing a claim starts when you realise you have a claim to bring - not when you first became aware that someone was looking at something possibly going on, IYSWIM?

To be fair to the claimants (coughs) they may have been told this was all being investigated, and they may be involved, but didn't understand fully that there was evidence on which a claim could be brought until Byline Times was ready to publish on it? Just playing devil's advocate for a second, and ignoring that 'watershed moment' email.....

Can anyone with legal knowledge help there?

I don't think pp is saying that there was clear evidence of hacking - more that at least 2 of the claimants, Simon, Sadie and possibly Liz were discussing suing the Mail for hacking in 2015-6 and Sherborne was involved in e-mail exchanges with Hacked Off as well in February 2016. However in their claims they state that they first became aware of illegal information gathering in 2019-20 through the Byline Times.

There are emails between Hacked Off and SH? about using the Byline Times for "litigation purposes"

And there are emails between Hugh Grant and Hacked Off about rounding up some more sympathetic victims for the case such as Gary Lineker although he had "no dead children" - thereafter Prince Harry (with a dead mother) was recruited by Sherborne in 2019-20 and Baroness Lawrence (with a dead child) joined the claim (allegedly after talking to Harry) in 2022.

These issues are discussed in several news reports

Sky News' live reporting on Simon Hughes
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-mail-latest-duke-of-sussex-liz-hurley-elton-john-and-other-sue-publisher-in-high-stakes-trial-13493734

Telegraph reporting of Evan Harris (Hacked Off) evidence
https://archive.is/t5ejf#selection-4543.0-4546.0

Daily Mail reporting on Evan Harris testimony
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15507015/Ex-MP-denies-paying-witnesses-evidence-against-Daily-Mails-publisher-privacy-claim.html

I'm assuming, though, that the six year cut off for bringing a claim starts when you realise you have a claim to bring - not when you first became aware that someone was looking at something possibly going on, IYSWIM?

That's what I was asking the other day @PrayForMyBum - I thought it was 6 years from being aware of a possible claim, but the claimants in court are being very specific about when they were 'shown evidence'.

It would be very good to have a definitive answer 😊

I think you are spot on. Harry etc probably thought ANL would cave in but clearly they haven’t .
Thanks for all the very insightful updates from everyone especially @bluegreygreen , @Lunde and @TheAutumnCrow

I found this part of the judgement in the Mirror case where the judge dismisses the cases of 2 of the claimants as out of time

This seems to be the relevant bit of the judgement
The relevant limitation issue in both cases was whether they could have realised, by exercising reasonable diligence, that they had a worthwhile claim against Mirror Group by a date 6 years before they issued their claims – so by 7 December 2014 in Mr Sanderson’s case and by 30 July 2015
.............................................................

Mirror Group’s Limitation Defence. Ms Sanderson’s claim was issued on 7 December 2020; Ms Wightman’s on 30 July 2021. The relevant limitation issue in both cases was whether they could have realised, by exercising reasonable diligence, that they had a worthwhile claim against Mirror Group by a date 6 years before they issued their claims – so by 7 December 2014 in Mr Sanderson’s case and by 30 July 2015 in Ms Wightman’s case. I have explained in my judgment how the legal test applies in the cases of individual claimants who complain about the underlying unlawful information gathering lying behind published articles. An important question is the extent to which any claimant was misled by the terms of the articles, or by what Mirror Group was saying, into believing that a friend or family member had leaked their private information to the Press. That could be material because it might lead a claimant not to pay attention to news coverage relating to phone hacking, which they might have done if they had not been misled. However, in both Ms Sanderson’s and Ms Wightman’s cases, I have found that they were not misled in that way.

The question is therefore whether each of them could have realised much earlier, by the relevant dates in 2014 and 2015, that they had a worthwhile claim against Mirror Group. In their cases, that turned on whether, by being reasonably attentive to the news and social media from 2012 to 2015, they would have been alerted to a possible claim that they should investigate further. I have concluded in both their cases that if they had been reasonably attentive, they would have been alerted to a possible claim, and so they could reasonably have found out by the end of October 2014 that they had a worthwhile claim against Mirror Group. Accordingly, time for their claims expired six years after that date. Both claims are therefore barred by the Limitation Act and must be dismissed.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Duke-of-Sussex-v-MGN-Judgment-Press-Summary.pdf

Yes, thank you all very much

Thanks @Lunde

In their cases, that turned on whether, by being reasonably attentive to the news and social media from 2012 to 2015, they would have been alerted to a possible claim that they should investigate further.

That looks like they wouldn't need to have seen definite evidence, just have a reasonable suspicion - which I'm sure the defence would argue was constituted by the emails.

I still can't get over the known existence of these emails and handing them over to ANL and yet still pushing to go to court.

Which as a pp says makes me wonder if it isn't as damning as it seems.

What is scheduled for tomorrow?

Has Evan Harris concluded his evidence?

The cases are listed for tomorrow at 10.30

I haven't seen anything about the application earlier today to a different judge