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

David Furnish is asked about his relationship with journalists.
"I don't go around to cocktail parties and gab to journalists, I try and avoid them at all costs," he says.
Furnish says he's usually "very guarded" about what he says in public, "especially if I know they are a journalist".
He adds: "The way those people work, sometimes if you are harsh or cut them off, then there's a danger they write something about you being badly behaved or unpleasant.
"You master the art of saying nothing, being polite and exiting the situation without giving them anything substantial."
He adds: "I've never been someone who has courted the press."

Sir Elton John's husband, David Furnish, explained the couple's claim in the case against the Daily Mail publisher during his short time on the witness stand this afternoon.
One of the articles in question is from 30 December 2010 and has the headline "Elton: I'm the daddy".
Not only do the couple point out in their witness statements that this was quite homophobic in tone, they've said they were shocked at how the Daily Mail had been able to obtain a copy of their son's birth certificate for the piece before they did, and they're convinced that was done through blagging - in other words someone pretending to be either them or someone close to them.
The Mail claims the article's writer telephoned the local registrar's office and introduced himself as a journalist.
At the time, there was intense interest in what was going on.
The couple had been very open about their intention to have children. Two married men having a baby via surrogacy was still relatively new in the mainstream conversation.
For a lot of media outlets, it was framed as a "first". This was during a period when debates over same-sex marriage, adoption and family structures made front-page news.
That openness invited attention, and Furnish explained his approach to dealing with that and why the couple chose to sell their first baby photos to another outlet in court.
"We had a very carefully planned media strategy," he said. "We chose publications who would pay us a substantial amount of money which we gave to our AIDS foundation."
With 15 to 20 cars parked outside their apartment, he said, they hoped to "take the money out of the market" for that first photo.
The point being they wanted their own charity to profit from that interest so they weren't giving information out to journalists freely.

David Furnish finishes giving evidence.
Sir Elton John, who has been listening to his husband speaking on the livestream from court, will give his evidence tomorrow, the judge confirms.

It doesn't say where they're giving evidence from, but if it's outside the UK, there's no reason Burrows can't do the same ...

I thought birth certificates were public records and anyone can access them?

So, one of the articles was from (incorrect) information from EJ's own spokesperson, and a second one was previously published in France...

That's what I thought @ThePoshUns - can't you get them online these days?

Yes I’ve had to order a few over the years for work. Ordered and paid online.

You just need to know where the were registered, that’s the tricky part as not a national database.

But i thought ANL tried to get the case dismissed, and a judge ruled there was enough of a case I.e. evidence so the trial should go ahead?

ANL tried to get the case thrown out before trial on the basis all the claims are out of time. The judge ruled it should go ahead, but without reaching a view on whether the claims are within time or not. They wanted to hear and see all the evidence before making a final decision on that point. So it’s still “on the table” as it were from ANL.

Excerpt from DM article

In written submissions, Antony White KC and Catrin Evans KC, both for ANL, said the social circles of most of the group of household names bringing the claims were “leaky”.
They continued: “Their friends, and friends of friends or associates, did regularly provide information to the press about the claimants’ private lives, for obvious reasons on a confidential basis.”
The barristers later said that Sir Elton’s spokesman at the time “regularly provided the media, including Associated journalists, with information about their lives”, including health information.
Asked about his social circle during his cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Evans suggested to Furnish that “from time to time you would be happy to chat to journalists”.
Furnish responded: “I really try to avoid them at all costs.”

...................................
The court was previously told the pair felt the safety of their children had been “violated” by alleged unlawful news-gathering, including the alleged “stealing” of Zachary’s birth certificate before the couple had received a copy.
Discussing an article about this in his written evidence, Furnish said: “The Mail used the birth certificate story to feed into their homophobic agenda.
“They paired it with unflattering photos of Elton and me leaving a fancy dress party and mocked us with a caption casting me as the ‘mother’ and Elton as the ‘father’.
“It was deeply offensive but entirely in keeping with their attitude toward us.”
In written submissions, ANL’s lawyers said that the article was “entirely legitimately” sourced from previously published reports of the child’s birth, information from the local registrar’s office as well as a statement from agency the Centre for Surrogate Parenting.
Furnish told the court in his oral evidence that neither he or Sir Elton had given the surrogacy agency permission for the statement, adding: “We had a very carefully planned media strategy.”
-----

Ms Evans said that the medical information in the article was taken from a public statement, media reporting and statements from spokespeople.
She later asked: “Would you accept that the article that you are claiming about here was reporting in fact a public statement made on Sir Elton’s own website and also contained further reporting of the information which had been put out by your or Sir Elton’s spokesman?”
Furnish said in response: “The information in the article that was concerning was the information about the treatment that Elton had undertaken.
“When you cancel show dates, you have to give fans reassurance, but you don’t want to have to reveal 100% of what is going on medically.
“He had to have a series of X-rays and scans…. it was the specific detail in that article about the treatment that he had undergone that was surprising and of concern.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-15532589/David-Furnish-calls-alleged-stealing-information-abominationcourt-told.html

https://archive.is/dl1jR

I’m guessing the Mail would have a pretty good guess and probably the time and resources to try a lot of places to find the right one.

It’s weird to give evidence to say it must have been illegal means when birth certificates are public records - surely they’d have been told this.

This part is just so odd to me. I’m not sure if the reporting lacks the full context but it sounds like he’s saying the spokesperson is putting out incorrect information. But if that were the case that’s an issue to take up with their own team, it’s completely irrelevant to a claim against the Mail!

So in a nutshell:
Unflattering photos
Was in ambulance with EJ to hospital
They had media strategy (money) and pissed off they were beaten to the punch!

Good grief.

Furnish told the court in his oral evidence that neither he or Sir Elton had given the surrogacy agency permission for the statement

And that is shit, but has precisely what to do with ANL?

Has there been anything presented in the case so far that looks like compelling evidence?

Nothing illegal with any of that @binkie163 and @TheAutumnCrow - and the ambulance story had previously been published by a French paper, so was already out in the public domain.

And, as @ThePoshUns has pointed out, birth certificates are public documents.

Still no clear illegal activity.

Not so far @StartupRepair.

Quite a lot of very questionable stuff from the claimants' side with large payments and stories of threats/intimidation.

Exactly, I could have done the same myself.

And if the surrogacy agency gave information without their permission, then that is the agency at fault not the Daily Mail.

Is it just me thinking that the claimants' PIs have yet to deliver any specific examples of UIG that the claimants have raised - phone tapping, hidden microphones, blagging hospital records etc. Have there been any specifics? Or does it all rest on the Burrows' dodgy dossier?

I'm beginning to think that while the Max Mosley money tap was pouring out huge sums the "researchers" were happy to invent stories and sign statements saying "yeah, I did loads of illegal stuff" for £20K and Hacked Off's assurances that it would never go to court and there would be lots more money to throw around....

I know that newspapers pay people to check the court filings list every day to see if there’s any newsworthy claims filed by someone famous. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they regularly recent births, deaths and marriages records for the same reason.

That makes sense (paying people to check court filings).

The witnesses in this case (and I know we're not in court, so not getting the full story) have repeatedly seemed to suggest that any payment for information must be illegal, which is clearly wrong.

Telegraph tonight:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/3ea0192e44763f83

So from that article, the surrogate could have leaked information, the Nannie’s, the interior designers, the decorators, the housekeeper….Liz told Bing who they acknowledged leaked.
Staff on Hello magazine preparing for the then upcoming article…. And the list goes om.