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

Archive link to Guardian report https://archive.is/7S2bo

Yes, seems she was groomed by Harry as the token 'victim with a dead child' which Hacked off wanted. Its shocking.

Things that stand out to me, having had a very quick read through:

-She says she doesn't do interviews over phones - so where does this story of someone calling and pretending to be a journalist from the Guardian come from?
-Someone in the police may have been leaking (police officer, admin staff, canteen worker? - varying levels of culpability): doesn't necessarily mean ANL have done something illegal
-Again the question of who selected the articles; at least DL is up front and says she's not sure
-At least the email from PH does seem to be her first contact with them

Agree - it's horrible

Again the question of who selected the articles; at least DL is up front and says she's not sure.

I don't believe she is being upfront, she is being coy, more than likely told to give a non comital answer by her lawyers.

White asks if Baroness Lawrence selected articles or if they were chosen for her.
"I'm not certain about that," she replies.
In other words they were chosen for her.
Out of thousands of articles she was happy with, a small selection that despite her personal relationship with daily mail she didn't say anything about at the time! She could have easily said she was unhappy and asked for an apology at the time. The mail were hardly likely to shoot the golden goose.
So it seems harry primed her and Sherborn stepped in to close the sale with evidence of wrong doing by already discredited witness. DL unhappy that information was paid for and yet her complaint is based entirely on paid for information/witness and only hearsay, no actual evidence....again.

Isn’t it strange that none of the claimants know much about Hacked Off despite widespread coverage over the years ?

Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/75bc62a78dff8625

Archived version
https://archive.is/0zH0P

I'm a little confused.

DL says the police leaked information - illegal for the police but is it UIG by ANL? Another story she is complaining about it is about setting up a public inquiry - it appears that the Home Secretary (Jack Straw) called Paul Dacre directly - so what is the illegal activity?

However DL's evidence shows the cynical way that she was recruited by Harry and Sherborne in 2022.

I was wondering this too, has she thrown a spanner in the works by being honest and truthful?

Lady Lawrence told the court that having seen all of the material disclosed as part of her legal claim, she still believed it had been the police leaking information about her but added that “there were others” involved.

So where is the unlawful activity by ANL?

Lady Lawrence alleged that the Mail had “used” her and her son to give them credibility.

I wonder what she thinks Hacked Off is doing ...

And this

Among the five articles she claimed were obtained unlawfully is a front-page story revealing that the government planned to launch a new public inquiry into her son’s death, published in July 1997.

The article said that Jack Straw, the then home secretary, decided to establish the inquiry, which was led by a senior judge. It also said that the Lawrence family was considering bringing a second private prosecution against two of the suspects – Norris and Jamie Acourt – as well as an action for damages against all five.

But Associated argued that Mr Straw passed the story to Mr Dacre directly.

Also we know that Doreen Lawrence’s husband Neville had a direct relationship with Paul Dacre; and that DL has recently given evidence to the ‘Spycops Inquiry’ that she thinks/knows that the police were directly spying on her.

So where does ANL come into it?

I think I read somewhere that the allegation is that ANL/those working on their behalf had paid the police for information. So, yes the police were leaking - but were (illegally) incentivised to do so.

What do we think the evidence was that PH (of all people) had to hand that ‘had just come up and she needed to know about it’ was?

A lot of this was leaked by police,” she said. “We would see the police one day and the next day there’d be an article reporting what was said at the meeting.”
Lady Lawrence told the judge: “I’ve never been able to grieve properly for my son because of the way the police treated me.”
She added that she “had no trust” in the police.

She certainly had a case against the police, the met paid 320k in December 2000 her anger still seems to be about the police.

Could this actually be about greed after all? She says the mail betrayed her, the only paper to pursue her son's murderers and apply pressure. I don't want to think she is being grabby but 25 years later she wants to drag it all back up.

So...

She met Sherborne and Sangani at the hotel.
“They told me in person the information that had accidentally surfaced about me late the year before in 2021 through a conversation between two private investigators who had worked for The Mail,” she added.
Lady Lawrence said she later found out that the two men in question were Gavin Burrows and Mr Rees. Both private investigators, said to have “confessed” to such crimes, have since denied such activity.

They told her she had a claim, based on Info from Burrows and Rees, both of whom have since denied this.

She says that having seen all of the material disclosed as part of her legal claim, she still believed it had been the police leaking information about her but added that “there were others” involved.

Where is the case against ANL?

It's not illegal to pay for information

It's a bit odd that she isn't sure whether she selected the articles or not...

I actually feel a bit queasy after reading those articles about Doreen Lawrence's evidence. She appears a vulnerable woman (in regards to her emotional state about her son's murder), who has been taken advantage of by Sherborne et al. The claimant's better win this case or else her trust will be absolutely gone - who on earth could she trust now??

And, while I generally dislike the Mail I do believe their campaign to bring Stephen's murderers to justice was genuine. They risked everything with that campaign and went much further than they actually needed to.

For Sherborne et al to denigrate that achievement is appalling.

No, it's seedy and morally questionable, but it's absolutely not illegal or UIG.

If paying police officers for info is not illegal, surely it should be?

Obviously it is illegal for the police to leak information - but as a PP wrote she sued the Met 25 years for their shortcomings ago and got £320,000.

The Judge in this case has said that the claimants need to show illegal activity by ANL (hacking, bugging, blagging etc) - but although DM may have acted immorally, I'm not sure they acted illegally themselves. I think like Harry - DL has become very paranoid

As others are pointing out, DL is saying that the meetings with Police were printed in the Mail the following day. That could either be corrupt police sharing the information to PIs or maybe the police’s own media team sharing what would have been a positive story for them. I am struggling to see how DL is a a victim of UIG. Even a journalist pretending to be a guardian journalist , isn’t illegal, morally wrong of course.
I think Harry has duped her into taking part on advice from HO. It’s all very unsavoury.