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'm stunned at how naive and ill prepared they all are.

The issues around the timeline are looking increasingly iffy - the claimants big issue is their contention that they knew nothing about ANL activities so were unable to file earlier

But
PH - his own brother was involved in raising the unlawful information gathering issue in 2005 that resulted in Leveson - yet Harry claims not to have known anything until Sherborne approached him at a party in 2019

LH - her best friend Hugh Grant was involved in highly publicized testimony to the Leveson inquiry (where Sherborne was counsel for the victims) and gave the Hacked Off campaign group £350,000 in 2015 - but now claims she wasn't really involved with the group and didn't know anything until 2019-20.

SF - also involved with Hacked Off and hosted a party for them in 2015 and exchanged e-mails with Hacked Off's executive director about suing ANL around 2015/6 and also discussed approaching Kate Moss to join the claimants in 2017?. But claims now she wasn't really involved with them and was asked on NYE 2018 to comment on the Byline Times article from 2019 that is used by the claimants as the date they "discovered" they were victims. When asked about the discrepancy she became angry and started to talk about her feelings...

Very late to the party and I’ve not been following the case very closely but it seems SF got quite a grilling and Harry…..didn’t. Any reason for this?

@Serensterthanks as ever for providing the legal deciphering!

surely on the basis of this, Sadie Frost is absolutely screwed? It can hardly be believed by anyone that she could be having meetings with Hacked Off in April 2016 where their own written record refers to her having a potential claim against the Mail and yet not have been able to discover that she was a possible victim of UIG.

Some of her later responses seem to argue that her lawyer did not advise her to make a claim at that time - but that’s not the same as not being aware that the “crime” occurred. Surely there’s no prospect of her succeeding in this case?

I can also only assume Sherbourne has coached them all to play the tearful dimmos up on the stand because (having been forced to go to court, which I agree none of them probably expected or wanted) that’s the only viable prospect of success - to hope they convince the judge that they were all so hard of thinking and unaware of the world around them that they could only have found out when explicitly told in 2019.

Welcome @BigWillyLittleTodger

From what I can tell from the reporting, each of the witnesses (PH, LH, SF) has mainly been taken through their witness statement and asked questions about what is in the statement, how they chose the articles for the trial, when they first knew about the alleged UIG.

None of the questioning has sounded to me particularly onerous/invasive, given that it was supposed to be cross-examination. I think Antony White KC is mainly letting them tie themselves up in knots.

There were some extra questions for SF because of the email trail. LH spent most of the time in tears. PH by most reports spent most of the time arguing with AW KC and had to be told not to by the judge on several occasions.

(Other opinions are available)

Thank you @bluegreygreen for the welcome and the explanation which makes things clearer. How the claimants have got themselves into this position is baffling, no wonder they are all in tears on the stand, what a shit show.

If you have some time to waste the live text reporting was either summarised or copied&pasted on the last thread

Who is on the stand tomorrow?

Apparently Simon Hughes (according to the Sky News page)

I think they have more evidence and paper trail that SF was aware

• hosting the hacked off party in 2015
• exchanging e-mails with Hacked Off that she might have a claim
• e-mails about her possibly speaking to Kate Moss about joining the plaintiffs a couple of years before SF says she discovered she was a "victim"

I think Harry is more the useful idiot that was recruited to raise the profile. I think White may have decided to cut short the grandstanding that Harry was doing to grab headlines. Look at how much of the media used headlines about Harry and Meghan's "misery" when no articles in the case involve Meghan at all. His evidence was all over the place - focussed on vibes and feelings - yet he was unable to follow simple instructions and was admonished by the judge.

Thanks for the summary@Lunde, it does sound like SF has tied herself in knots with that paper trail and as for Harry, I was just hoping his lying would be proven in a tv courtroom drama style take down! But yes maybe they didn’t want to give him too much time to airtime.

I don't think Harry was deliberately lying so much as believing that his feelings are facts. It is awful to have your private life in the press but the fact it is awful doesn't necessarily mean that the information was obtained illegally.

It's interesting that all of the celebrities so far have insisted that their friendship circle never leaks. It's just not credible with the amount of people they come in contact with to assume that no one ever said anything.

It's impossible to tell if someone in their friendship circle 'leaked' inadvertently, surely? Even if everyone is 100% loyal, there are degrees of friendship, close friends have other close friends etc

Why is Sir Simon Hughes bringing a claim?Former deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Simon Hughes, is one of seven claimants in the privacy case brought against Associated Newspapers Ltd.
He claims he was the victim of unlawful information gathering commissioned by ANL, including phone hacking.
In written evidence, Sir Simon says it was "distressing" to have been "targeted... using unlawful means and the use of private investigators for the purposes of their own profit".
We'll hear more from Sir Simon when he faces questioning later this morning.

Proceedings get underwayThe trial is getting started for the day as the judge, Mr Justice Nicklin comes into court.
We'll shortly be hearing from former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes, who is one of the seven claimants bringing a privacy claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL).
He'll first answer a few brief questions from David Sherborne, who is representing Sir Simon and the other claimants in the case.
He will then be cross-examined by Antony White KC, for ANL.

Thank you @jeffgoldblum

I have an electrician here doing stuff and the power (and hence WIFI!) has been off - very glad you're here to help with updates.

Sir Simon Hughes is first asked by David Sherborne about his written witness statements, which he confirms he has signed and are true.
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Ltd, is now asking him questions.
Sir Simon confirms he was a witness at the Leveson inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, and has taken previous legal action against News Group Newspapers NGN - the publisher of the News of the World and The Sun.
He claims The Sun had published material about him "clearly" obtained by unlawful means.
He settled the claim in 2021, although NGN made no admission of liability in relation to The Sun.

Exactly - and the Primrose Hill set of the early 2000s were never known as a quiet, retiring, tight lipped group.

Also stuff leaks from inner circle, to outer circle to others really easily. I (3000 miles away but not saying what it is) even know about a situation where an action was witnessed by a member of staff, who told their mother .... who told everyone!!! (and yes it involved Prince Harry).

Antony White KC is questioning Sir Simon Hughes about his contact with Dr Evan Harris, another former Liberal Democrat MP and prominent figure in the Hacked Off press reform campaign group.
The court is shown a text message in which Dr Harris told him about a "whistleblower" ahead of a meeting in February 2016.
Mr White says Dr Harris was "particularly interested" in the "Simon Hughes story" which emerged from a 2006 email exchange, involving journalist Greg Miskiw and a Mail on Sunday journalist.
Sir Simon says he has "no recollection" of being told Miskiw was the alleged whistleblower or of the mention of the Mail on Sunday at the time.
Mr White suggests he didn't have to wait until early 2022 for an explanation of notes from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Sir Simon says he had already asked police twice says over the years if anyone from a non-News Group Newspapers (NGN) title was involved, but was told there was not.
He says he didn't have information about Associated Newspapers Ltd until 2022.
Sir Simon is asked about another March 2016 in which he was asked about "the Mail business", which White suggests his attempt to explain is "convoluted and untruthful".
Sir Simon apologises if it was "convoluted" but denies anything in his statement is "untruthful".
For context: A major argument in Associated Newspapers Limited's defence is that the seven claimants in the trial waited too long before bringing a case.
However, the claimants, who brought their case in October 2022, say they only learned they had a claim against the publisher after the October 2016 cut off date for legal action.

So Simon Hughes also was involved with Hacked Off much earlier than the dates stated in their action.

Thanks @bluegreygreen, my Wi-Fi just went off too! 😱

@jeffgoldblum Hopefully we can tag-team!

Do we know much about Simon hughes? , I’ve never heard of him .

🤣 ❤️ unless we both lose it simultaneously! 😱