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 think at this point you have to feel sorry for Judge Nicklin.

I’m wondering if the judge is weighing up what has been presented to him thus far versus the costs involved if he lets it continue for the full 9 weeks.

How does it work with Civil Cases? Can Judge Nicklin hear the claimants side and rule that they haven't made their case and throw it out?

I once sat on a criminal jury where we heard the prosecution - then the defence made an application (we were sent out) and when we came back the Judge directed us to find him not guilty.

I’m still a bit stunned at the admission that Max Mosley instructed (paid) dodgy Johnson to ‘beef up the propaganda’, and that’s part of the claimants’ case.

I know!!

particularly they’re also trying to argue that part of the UIG is bribery towards people in positions with privileged information. And yet that’s an active tactic they’re deploying? It’s utterly ridiculous

It's a farce.

DM archive link - thanks @Lunde

https://archive.is/9ivi6

You're not alone, Theautumncrow ... I keep getting mixed up and thinking this surely has to be ANL who'd been paying these integrity-free idiots to produce what they demanded, but no it's the claimants' team

Quite literally incredible

Thanks - archive has been running at a snail's pace for me tonight.

I’m disappointed that the media hasn’t been covering all the case ( maybe because it’s a dumpster fire that after tagging it as Harry’s case looks bad) , this case is an extreme waste of taxpayers money and is obviously a vehicle for massive egos , enough, I want freedom of the press to hold these lying , manipulating dickheads responsible.

“I never paid for witness evidence which was used in legal proceedings
And yet here it is, the backbone of the legal proceedings!

I wonder how Doreen Lawrence feels about being bankrolled by Mosley a well known racist? Getting into bed with such a high profile racist after successfully suing the racist met seems really hypocritical to me.

This should be the end of sherbornes career, he has brought a case on manufactured evidence, there is no chance he didn't know. The bar association should make an example of him.

Did any of these claimants even look at the evidence or just so blinded by greed for a pay out and wanting to be in the spotlight. Was there an application for it to be held in closed court? I can't wait for Elton, I hope he has a hissy fit, got my popcorn ready. Worse than reputational damage, the claimants look ridiculous and foolish, it may cost them millions to have trashed themselves.

PA this morning has given up trying to predict what's going on 😂- just says 'witnesses continue to testify'. I suspect it's Graham Johnson again. I'm sure AW is only just getting started.

When do we expect EJ up? Is he the last celeb scheduled? Will any of the others be called back again?

Is all of this tax payers money?

The draft schedule has EJ and DF today but it's all out of whack, so who knows? I'm not sure how much actual taxpayers' money is involved. Might any lawyers know?

The admission that this is being bankrolled to a large extent by the late Max Mosley’s money is interesting. When he was alive, he had it in for tabloids because of the exposé(s).

The Mail sent a dossier to the police about him, accusing him of perjury in a court hearing in 2008 involving the News of the World. (I think I’ve got that right?)

The perjury was all about a racist leaflet that he simultaneously had acknowledged, and then denied knowledge of in court proceedings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43229971#:~:text=Labour%20says%20it%20will%20not,would%20come%20to%20an%20end.&text=Mr%20Mosley%20has%20given%20about,courageous%20politicians%20we%20have%20got%22.

What's happening with Gavin Burrows? Will he testify remotely?

This thread is a much needed source of humor as the rest of the RF threads are so depressing.

It’s a shame the reporting seems to have dried up a bit - the live updates were really interesting, but I guess they only bother to do that for the big names.

You kind of have to admire Max Mosley from his commitment to sticking it to the tabloids, who he hated. He sued the News of the World back in 2008 for invading his privacy when they published an expose of his sex parties with prostitutes - the NOTW had managed to get one of the participants to take covert photos and describe the activities.

The NOTW argued that as the parties were “Nazi-themed”, it was in the public interest to publish the story (Max being Chair of the Formula 1 Group, and obviously the son of a Fascist leader). But he was able to prove that this wasn’t correct, they were just bog standard domination themed sex parties, with no Nazi theming. And as all participants had willingly consented to the activities , they were nobody else’s business but his and theirs. And he won.

Which was great two fingers up at the tabloid press, but also established the same privacy laws that now protect the Royal family members from, say having their private lives reported on in the UK (when they are not consorting with convicted paedophiles, that is).

Am told David Furnish is on the stand now.....

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-daily-mail-live-elton-john-david-furnish-associated-newspaper-13493734

Thanks for this - not much to it is there? Seems like he was only questioned for under an hour - and once again, no apparent evidence that anything they’re complaining about is UIG on behalf of the Mail.

So the information for some of the articles they claim was gathered "illegally" came from "incorrect information" from Elton's own press spokesman???

Sir Elton's former PR chief gave 'incorrect information' to journalists, Furnish claims
It's put to David Furnish that sensitive information about Sir Elton John's medical records was already publicly available due to statements from the couple's former long-time spokesperson, Gary Farrow.
One of the articles Furnish has complained about concerns Sir Elton's trip to a Monaco hospital via ambulance, which suggested Furnish was not at the hospital.
"It's not correct information he's providing," Furnish says, adding that he was in the ambulance with Sir Elton.
"It feels like PR spin to me, it's not exactly what Elton was dealing with and the circumstances he's dealing with."

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-v-daily-mail-live-elton-john-david-furnish-associated-newspaper-13493734

David Furnish is giving evidence, answering questions put to him by Catrin Evans KC, for Associated Newspapers, via videolink rather than in the High Court.
He is being asked about articles published in the Daily Mail concerning his personal life and that of his husband, Sir Elton John.
He says the pair were confused about how stories about their lives were emerging.
"We might talk about it amongst ourselves and wonder, 'Where did that come from?', but we had no way of knowing," he says.
"We just assumed it was a leak."

David Furnish is asked about an article published in 2009 in the Daily Mail about Sir Elton John cancelling tour dates due to medical concerns.
It is alleged the article contained unlawfully obtained medical information about Sir Elton.
The lawyer put it to Furnish that much of the information in the article was already released by Sir Elton's spokesperson and came from information on his official website.
Furnish responds: "The information in the article of concern to us was that of the treatment Elton undertook.
"When you cancel show dates you want to give fans reassurance, but you don't want 100% medically.
"What Elton was dealing with was far more serious than a bacterial infection or influenza."
Furnish says the information in the article that Sir Elton had a "series of scans and x-rays" was "concerning".

David Furnish is asked about an article in the Daily Mail with the headline "Girl about town: Elton in Monaco ambulance dash", published in August 2015.
The couple allege it contained "unlawfully obtained medical information" about his admission to hospital in Monaco.
The lawyer puts it to him that the article first emerged in a French magazine, published on 31 July 2015, before the article they are complaining about.

It's put to David Furnish that sensitive information about Sir Elton John's medical records was already publicly available due to statements from the couple's former long-time spokesperson, Gary Farrow.
One of the articles Furnish has complained about concerns Sir Elton's trip to a Monaco hospital via ambulance, which suggested Furnish was not at the hospital.
"It's not correct information he's providing," Furnish says, adding that he was in the ambulance with Sir Elton.
"It feels like PR spin to me, it's not exactly what Elton was dealing with and the circumstances he's dealing with."