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

Seconding the thanks and also adding @Serenster for helpful legal insights.

This case seems a downright mess!

Our own @GwendolineFairfax8 's missive, perhaps.

I'm not a lawyer but do some of the e-mails give Sherborne a problem as a barrister?

Surely he must have direct knowledge that some of the claimants were lying when they say they didn't have any knowledge of potential UIG before 2019-20 when he was in direct contact with with Hacked Off in February 2016 about suing the Mail:
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”.

Then there are the ever shifting revisions of Simon Hughes (when did he retain Sherborne?)
Original statement - became aware 2020
Revised statement - became aware 2019 (after e-mail emerged)
In court - e-mail about holding meetings with lawyers 2016 about suing the Mail - although he claims these were "preliminary"

Cross post - sort of.

New report has landed from the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/189a0e566fcea5db

Thanks also to @kirinm for helpful explanations, and @indianrollerbird who was very helpful on the previous thread.

OMG - are the claimants branding one of their sources "a fantasist"? And the claimants via Hacked Off paid her?

I’ve also been wondering if Sherborne has been straying into ‘witness coaching’ territory over the course of these long years and events.

The current CPS guidance makes it clear what is expected and permissible and ‘explains the difference between assisting a witness to be better able to deal with the rigors of giving evidence (which is permitted) and witness coaching (which is not permitted)’ in the legal jurisdiction of England & Wales.

I’m sceptical that there hasn’t been some coaching.

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.ph/Tsk0I

So Baroness Lawrence has given evidence.

It's all sounding extremely murky. The amount of money that people are being offered (or actually paid) for notes and information is clearly excessive.

In 2016, when Christine Hart was approached by Graham Johnson she was worried - so spoke to her bosses

The court was shown an email sent by Ms Hart to a Daily Mail executive in 2016 in which she revealed she had been approached by Mr Johnson.

She said he had told her Mr Grant was "out to destroy' the Mail, that her work for the newspaper had been illegal – or otherwise immoral – and that she must hand over her bank statements to prove she had been paid by the company.

Ms Hart asked in the email for advice, explaining that she felt “overwhelmed.”

A few days later, having spoken to Ms Hart, Associated lawyer Julian Darrall wrote to managing editor Charles Garside.

“She thinks Graham Johnson is working for Hugh Grant and his barrister.. for Bylines, “ he wrote, in reference to the Byline Investigates website.

“She thinks they are trying to start a civil suit against the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Sunday Mirror.

I'm having trouble understanding this article

At times it sounds like Doreen Lawrence testified but in other evidence it sounds like they were confronting Evan Harris with Doreen Lawrence's sworn statement?

As far as I understand it It surrounds evidence of Christine Hart who blagged Doreen Lawrence by saying she was from the Guardian

• Hart was paid £20,000 by Hacked Off in 2016 for her notes. Hart claims that Harris (Hacked Off CEO) rented her a lake house, bought her dinner/ drinks
• but Harris says she was just paid for her time £20K is a lot of time - I assume they have records?
• Dr Harris told the court on Thursday that Ms Hart was “extremely difficult” and “hardly a trusted source”. - yet the claimants are relying on her evidence for Doreen Lawrence's case
• He said anything Ms Hart said about Mr Grant was “made up” and that she was a “fantasist”. So only her evidence about Hugh Grant is made up - not against ANL?
• The court was shown an email sent by Ms Hart to a Daily Mail executive in 2016 in which she revealed she had been approached by Mr Johnson. She said he had told her Mr Grant was “out to destroy” the Mail, that her work for the newspaper had been illegal – or otherwise immoral – and that she must hand over her bank statements to prove she had been paid by the company. So did they get evidence she worked for ANL or was this part of her Hugh Grant fantasy?
• The court last week heard a recording of Ms Hart in which she admitted blagging Lady Lawrence by pretending she was a journalist from The Guardian. However, she has also made a number of statements in which she states that she did not carry out illegal activity for the Mail newspapers, Associated said in written submissions. So did she blag Doreen Lawrence for ANL or because ex-Con Graham Johnson/Hacked Off paid her as part of their "evidence gathering" strategy?

I don't know if what I've read about Christine Hart is truly blagging in the sense I've read about before - saying you are from the Guardian when you are from ANL or Byline Times or freelance etc - to me, anyway, it sounds less serious than many cases. Doreen Lawrence knew she was speaking with a journalist and giving information for publication as a Member of the House of Lords. You never know what a journalist will do with information or what spin it will get.

To me it seems totally different from blagging when you get information by pretending to call from the doctor, the police, the bank, the council, your lawyer etc etc to get information that wasn't intended to be public.

Not sure what the legal distinction is though.

It is confusing - though I think part of that is how the article is written.

From 'Lady Lawrence ... told the High Court on Thursday' I assumed that she did give evidence. I think Evan Harris also continued to give evidence.

It sounds like CH was definitely paid £4000 for her notes, and was either paid or offered £16000 in addition for something, by Graham Johnson.
There is a recording of CH saying she blagged DL.
There are several statements by CH saying she did not carry out any legal activity for the Daily Mail.
There are emails from CH to her bosses at the DM in 2016, concerned about GJ and what he is doing.
Evan Harris states that CH is 'a fantasist'.

If nothing else, it shows CH as a not very reliable witness - almost in the Burrows camp.
Not a good look for the claimants, again.

Re blagging @Lunde - like you, I'm not sure. The definition I've seen is 'obtaining private information, like financial or medical records, through deception': does pretending to be a journalist from the Guardian rather than the DM (if she did indeed do that) fall into that?

It is confusing - I can understand why the plaintiffs are confused

However Evan Harris seems to be in dubious territory when he calls Hart obsessive, "a fantasist" and "hardly a trusted source" in what she says about Hugh Grant, Hacked Off renting her a house, the book deal, Hacked Off possibly inducing her to invent stuff about ANL for £20,000 - but then turn around and claim she is totally trustworthy in her statement that she blagged Doreen Lawrence!! 🤔

So is she a fantasist liar? Or is she a reliable witness? The claimants seem to want it both ways .... heads we win/tails you lose 🙄

DM article - trying to archive but in the queue ATM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15510081/Phone-hacker-paid-20-000-information-newspaper-group-told-raise-game-High-Court-hears.html

It seems like CH admitted to blagging, which should stand the legal test - but then Dr Harris completely discredited her!

I don't think Dr Harris knows what side he is batting for.

DM article - more murkiness

A convicted phone hacker paid for information about a newspaper group was reprimanded over concerns he was not giving value for money, the High Court heard.
Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire was paid more than £22,000 by a former tabloid reporter linked to the pressure group Hacked Off who was researching alleged misconduct at the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, which the newspapers deny.
The research, commissioned by Graham Johnson, formed part of a strategy to ‘swarm’ the newspaper group with legal actions and win public support for the group’s aims of reopening the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards, the High Court has been told.
But in a memo to Hacked Off’s then-director Evan Harris, Mr Johnson expressed apparent frustration that Mr Mulcaire needed to ‘raise his game’ in providing information, it was revealed.
Dr Harris, a former Lib Dem MP, had said: ‘I hope he [Mulcaire] does more than this brief note for his weekly money!’
To which Mr Johnson, also a convicted phone hacker, wrote: ‘I’m trying to get him [Mulcaire] to raise his game.
‘But he neither responds to threats or praise. I have b**cked him several times.’

https://archive.is/wggPg

Hedging his bets to save his skin against potential fraud charges?

It was a bit unclear whether Hart blagged DL for ANL or because HO were paying her for evidence/results?

Thanks @Lunde

There are also written statements from CH saying she did not carry out any illegal activity for the DM, @CraftyGin

It was a bit unclear whether Hart blagged DL for ANL or because HO were paying her for evidence/results?
That's what I'm starting to wonder - was this a case of manufacturing evidence?

I'm wondering this as well - Hacked Off clearly wanted results to bolster their campaign and political goals and lots of money seemed to change hands to get results....

I don't think anyone expected this to go to trial - it was supposed to be a quick settlement, a press conference claiming victory (even if they didn't win because settlements are secret - right?) to add to the political pressure of controlling the press.

Did it not give the claimants any pause for thought that they are relying on the "honesty" of several people who were deeply involved in the NotW scandal?
Glen Mulcaire - one of only 2 people imprisoned for hacking
Graham Johnson - a self confessed inventor of tabloid stories but claims he was pressured.... (possibly also by HO)

I think you're right.

Lots of money ... and threats, in the context of 2 people who have already been convicted once.

‘I’m trying to get him [Mulcaire] to raise his game.
‘But he neither responds to threats or praise. I have b**cked him several times.'

This has gone to court because ANL said they had found no sign of illegal activity in their own internal investigation at the time of Leveson, and are standing over that.

Hacked Off have been determined that they will be able to take down ANL as well as the other groups (and have the political motivation to do it). The wheels are coming off for them now if Harris is calling one of his own witnesses a fantasist.

However, there's lots of evidence we haven't heard yet, and presumably the judge thought there was sufficient for there to be a case (i.e. he didn't think it should clearly be thrown out on what he heard in pre-trial hearings).

I'm having trouble understanding this article

Phew, I feel completely lost

Very basically - Evan Harris (CEO of HO) was questioned about the work of investigator Christine Hart whose "notes" Hacked Off paid for alleging she blagged Doreen Lawrence.

The article basically boils down to Harris saying- Hart is telling the absolute truth when it comes to ANL's illegal activities but she is an unreliable, lying, fantasist when she talks about Hugh Grant, offering her a book deal, renting her a condo, taking her to restaurants although we did pay her £20,000 "for her time".

Good summary @Lunde 😀

And Harris is educated, and able to understand why this may be a problem?

Well he went to Oxford and IIRC he's a doctor

He did 13 years in Parliament for the Lib Dems with his mate Simon Hughes (he's a barrister so should know a bit about the law yet was misleading in his statement) and has been running HO since he very narrowly lost his Oxford seat in Parliament to the Conservatives (176 votes from a turnout of 56,480 voted)