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 also wasn’t aware to the extent that ANL were really the only champions for DL regarding Stephen’s murder.

Be very interesting to know how her stance towards them was turned.

Yes, is that the problem. I will try again, thank you.

And lastly I ended up in a deep drive on the history of phone hacking beginning with Captain Crunch in 1971.
I have had a great afternoon.

*Deep dive

Another article by the Red-site lawyer (although no one is checking credentials) focussing a lot on Baroness Lawrence who was recruited to the case by Harry. ANL are portraying her as a victim of Hacked Off

The conclusions are interesting
There's not much to gossip about here. Because what we have here is a woman, the Baroness, who seems to be the only one with any degree of respectability in this trial, pointing out that she doesn't actually have proof of what she's said, but rather that it was Harry who contacted her when her name "kept coming up" in the investigation he was conducting into alleged hacking practices by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. She said that this led her to discover that her name was linked to the allegations of unauthorized access to private information, and she didn't expect that anyone had intercepted her communications.
Therefore, White's strategy wasn't to attack the Baroness, but rather to show her that she was involved in a conspiracy against the Daily Mail. And of course, it doesn't help the plaintiffs much that practically none of the investigators they've cited as having worked for the Mail are exactly sane or honorable people.

archive.is/tjX2Z

Dr Harris insisted that he had not been shown the memo so had been unable to refresh his memory. “That was an error, it was not a falsehood,” he said of his evidence. “I would not say something that was untrue.

But it emerged on Friday that he had not only been sent the memo by Mr Johnson but had made significant edits to it.

Antony White KC, for Associated, said: “I suggest you’ve been caught out, Dr Harris, and the evidence you gave yesterday was untrue.

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Thanks for the links @Lunde and @CraftyGin

Evan Harris is really not looking good here. He's now been shown to have lied in court.

The former director of campaign group Hacked Off had repeatedly told the judge that he had never seen the report ... But it emerged on Friday that he had not only been sent the memo by Mr Johnson but had made significant edits to it.

Dr Harris insisted that he had not been shown the memo so had been unable to refresh his memory. “That was an error, it was not a falsehood,” he said of his evidence. “I would not say something that was untrue.”

So this memo was sent to Evan Harris for editing in December 2016. At that time, it said that Heather & Fiona Mills, Hugh Grant, Elizabeth Hurley and Jemima Khan (and their lawyers) had all been notified about potential claims.
Depending on the timing of those communications, Liz Hurley will be caught out of the limitation time as well.

Putin is a danger to everyone including Russians. 7 oligarchs in UK were sanctioned because they were connected to putin, 15 billion assets frozen but not relinquished by the likes of Abramovich. Travel ban but he moved to Turkey. People that rich don't have consequences. My customers are not on the list. I don't hold them personally responsible for a lunatic dictator in the same way I don't blame American friends for trump. We can protest against war and I did against Blair's war, without the fear of being lit up with plutonium. I have some Iraqi and Iranian customers I don't assume they are involved with Isis.
Sanctions have created odd bed partners in Russia, Iran, North Korea and china. Dangerous times.

Harris even looks shifty.

I have been looking forward to catching up with this thread today and it did not disappoint!
If I've read correctly, its interesting that DL is perhaps being portrayed as a victim of HO. Can't imagine getting involved in something like this myself without seeing hard evidence. Harry must have been very persuasive, hopefully perhaps that will come out in the remaining proceedings.

Who are DL and Ho?

Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Hacked Off

Sorry DL = Doreen Lawrence

You even forget that this is about the DM alleged hacking,🤔 the goings on between Hacked Off, Hugh Grant, the claimants and witnesses is far more intriguing and appears as corrupt as any newspaper hacking.

Can't imagine getting involved in something like this myself without seeing hard evidence.

Agree.

Also: can't imagine staying involved with it through 2 years of pre-trial hearings unless there was a lot more convincing evidence than has come out so far.

That's why I keep reminding myself that there is much more evidence to come; but on what we have heard to date I would be seriously questioning why Baroness Lawrence stayed involved.

It's a thorny issue.

If we go back to the time that they were getting their case together 2020-22 - Harry was still very popular, Sherborne's status was riding high after the Wagatha Christie trial and BLM was major news so it is easy to see why DL was a major coup for Hacked Off

We don't know what DL was told and by whom - but she was recruited by a Prince and shown reports by a top lawyer about people who claim to have hacked her. Was she told that the reports came from convicted criminals and a fantasist? Did She know that the "researchers" from HO had their own political agenda? Her lawyer should have looked into these sources but seem to have very close relationships to HO.

I can see why she might have got swept along by a Prince, celebrities and smooth talking lawyers - her problem is that if she withdrew she would be liable for ANL's costs as well as her own.

It is tricky, I know - and I'm not being flippant or suggesting it would have been easy.

I'm just thinking that while this stuff is new to us, none of what we are hearing now is new to any of the claimants - it's their evidence. It's all been in the legal bundles that have been given across to the defendants. It's been discussed in hearings (and some has been reported on).

I can see how DL might have been upset at the idea of being hacked; I can see how she might have been swept along by the injustice and been persuaded. Again, I'm not saying it's easy, but there has to be personal responsibility somewhere.

As I said - there will be much more evidence, and hopefully some more reliable evidence in her case.

A hypothetical question -

Suppose once of the claimants in a case like this discovered something in the first pre-trial hearing that meant they wished to withdraw from the case: would they be liable for all the defendant's costs for the full trial, or only up to that point?

In other words, can you jump off the moving train at any point, or are you committed to everything as soon as it starts?

So the ‘Consultant to Prince Harry’s legal team’ is, in fact, an exposed liar under oath?

I see I’m not the only poster wondering if all the other claimants were aware of this or not; and, if not, where this leaves them legally and financially.

I don’t really understand why DL has a complaint. The only personal story I can recall reading about her is a rift between her and the boy Stephen was with that night and he is the one to have spoken about it. I am racking my brains to think of anything else. I will be interested to hear what she has to say.

Just say there is some clear evidence of UIG, could DL end up being the only one that wins as everyone else would be outside the statute of limitations?

Plus if one can lie under oath and fabricante evidence, one can certainly lie to get someone onboard .

I just hope DL comes out of this ok, don’t really care about the others.

Doreen Lawrence WAS being spied on - by the Metropolitan Police!

She herself gave evidence to this effect to the undercover policing inquiry in November 2025 (aka the ‘Spycops Scandal).

Lady Lawrence said: “If they [Met Police] were able to put that amount of attention and resources into discrediting us as a family, if they’d put that amount of attention into seeking and to finding Stephen’s murderers, we would not be sitting here today …
**
… Outrage over the claims that Stephen’s family had been spied on was one of the key catalysts for the mammoth Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), which began in 2015.

She also spoke frequently to the press over the decades - she was and is an active campaigner.

In a further twist of which I was unaware until I read the article linked below, the campaign group Movement For Justice had been infiltrated by the police, and a police officer who had been involved later alleged (in 2013) that MFJ were trying to exploit Neville and Doreen Lawrence.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/national/25638295.police-tried-pit-grieving-parents-stephen-lawrence-other/

See also

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/20/doreen-lawrence-deeply-painful-to-learn-undercover-police-spied-on-family

Spycops inquiry: Doreen Lawrence says she does not believe ex-home secretary

Stephen Lawrence’s mother tells inquiry she did not believe Michael Howard when he told her he did not know police had spied on her family

I would say that Doreen Lawrence is pretty vulnerable in the area of feeling spied upon and lied to. I suspect that someone has been exploiting this.

The consultant to them all is Evan Harris (Hugh Grant’s lackey) so yes they would know and Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley have stated they actively assisted the cause. - with money/hosting event. Baroness Lawrence is the only one who seems to have been groomed - so she may have a case for escaping whatever they asked her to sign up to.