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

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link to Telegraph https://archive.is/dIkN3

Another interesting post from the Reddit Lawyer - OK keep a critical mind - but they offer an interesting perspective about why Sherborne is chucking in all of these dodgy PIs as witnesses.

I think Reddit Lawyer must be Spanish as it also includes analyses the case in comparison to the 2021 immunity/privacy case brought by former King Juan Carlos I - which was also heard by Judge Nicklin

https://archive.is/ADQpK

Interesting, thank you.

The birth certificate was recorded in LA but was requested by a journalist directly requesting it, not unlawful.
I agree not pleasant for Elton and Furnish but this isn’t what the case is about.
Elton John’s husband tells court of birth certificate ‘heartbreak’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6b297cb1-13e6-4744-a47b-1a3368debdd9?shareToken=6bc888bdaaf461a1e016d42b967924e6

So many defenders of the toxic conduct of journalists. I wonder if PH wasn’t involved, you’d be more sympathetic and less critical of the claimants.

It has outraged us that our family home was violated

I presume David Furnish is being metaphorical here and there isnt any evidence that their home was actually violated?

The claimants have brought this c case because they say that information about them was gathered illegally, that is what needs to be proved in court, not whether the articles were toxic and unpleasant. Harry has been instrumental in recruiting DL, but if her case doesn’t stand up it will fall on her to pay significant costs. Harry as we know has a significant axe to grind with the press but as been shown in court has been happy to run with the hate and the hounds, as have most of them. They don’t get to pick and choose what is written about them.

Sky is reporting live from Sir Elton questioning:

Prince Harry v Daily Mail live: Elton John giving evidence today against Mail publisher | UK News | Sky News

The case isn't about morals of "journalists", or investigators, even. It's about evidence, so far which seems to be lacking.

The problem with attempting to legislate against currently legal, but potentially immoral, tactics, is that it takes away from a free press. While you might try to say that there is no public interest in certain parts of the case (eg Zachary's birth certificate), but for other parts, there is a legitimate public interest. You are also talking about people who regularly throw themselves at cameras, and go to a lot of loose lipped parties. If you stop this kind of reporting or investigative journalism, you end up putting too many people behind a wall of privacy (eg politicians, if we want to get particularly topical).

A free press is an essential part of our democracy.

I have zero interest in defending tabloid media - but this case is about UIG. The civil courts are not there to act as a moral crusade.

If illegal acts are found then those who carried them out should rightly be held accountable. Also absolutely true that those who have not done anything illegal shouldn't be hounded in a witch hunt just because you don't like them.

I am critical because Hugh Grant, Evan Harris, David Sherborne etc are involved - with evidence Evan Harris (lackey of Hugh Grant) tried to recruit people (and apologises in his email to Hugh Grant for failing to get any parents with dead children).

All the information the claimants are wittering on about could have been leaked by friends of friends of friends of friends.

Here is an example - Hugh Grant’s son and daughter by different women. I did not get it from the Daily Mail as David Sherborne already knows - yet he brazenly presses on with the case regardless. If Hugh Grant’s information can be leaked - so can all of the others.

The image has been censored by me. I sent Sherborne the original.

I remind you that Hugh Grant accepted ‘a massive part 36 offer from The Sun - with no admission of liability) when HG knew his personal details had been leaked.

Tbh I have kind of forgotten PH is involved. I think it’s a fascinating case. What I find particularly interesting is that there doesn’t seem to be any concrete evidence that the DM did anything illegal. I thought it was bizarre that DF mentioned his ds’s birth certificate being accessed by journalists. I understand it’s a very intrusive thing to do but it’s a public record. There seems to be a lot of talk about hurt feelings but no substance.

Sir Elton tells court of 'incredible invasion of privacy'
Catrin Evans, representing Associated Newspapers Limited, starts questioning Sir Elton John.
He says it's "absolutely correct" his husband David Furnish speaks on behalf of him in this action.
A reminder, the couple are among seven high-profile claimants suing the Daily Mail publisher of unlawful information gathering.
Evans asks about the 10 articles involved in the couple's claim and questions whether the couple complained about them at the time they were published.
"I can't remember," Sir Elton replies.
"I don't think we knew the full extent of what had happened at the time.
"When we realised the seriousness of what had gone on... we were outraged."
Sir Elton tells the court he doesn't have a mobile phone, "so my only way of contact at the home is the landline".
He says the junction box at the end of his road was hacked in what was an "incredible invasion of privacy".

'My friends don't talk to the press, that's why they're my friends'
Sir Elton John tells the court he's "never afraid to fight" his corner when it comes to dealing with the British press.
He reiterates that he didn't take action right away when the articles were published "because we didn't know the severity".
"We don't take action unless we are pretty sure we have had an injustice done against us," he says.
Reminder: This all matters because a major argument in Associated Newspapers Limited's defence is that the seven claimants in the trial waited too long before bringing their case in October 2022 and could have reasonably found they had a claim before this.
However, the claimants say they did not discover they had a potential case until this time.
Sir Elton tells the court that his friends "don't talk to the press, and that is why they are my friends".

'I had something far more serious': Sir Elton questions how medical details were obtained
Sir Elton John is now asked about this article published in the Daily Mail in November 2009, headlined:
"Sick Elton cancels more tour dates"
Catrin Evans, representing Associated Newspapers Limited, suggests Sir Elton's argument is that the information was obtained unlawfully, but points out that details were published in a statement on his official website at the time.
Sir Elton says while that may be the case, the details mentioned in the article weren't included in the public statement.
"They were presuming I had something I didn't have," he says.
"I had something far more serious."

Elton getting snotty with ANL's barrister

...........................................
Sir Elton unimpressed with line of questioning
Sir Elton John appears unimpressed with the line of questioning from Catrin Evans, representing Associated Newspapers Limited.
He asks her if she has any questions that get to the "meat" of his claim, rather than focusing on a hospital trip.
"Surely you have some more things to ask me," he asks the defence lawyer.
"But you don't, do you."

Sir Elton 'never' authorised details about 'cocktail of injections' to be published
Sir Elton John is now being asked questions by his lawyer David Sherborne.
The lawyer, who is representing the seven high-profile claimants in this case, asks Sir Elton about a series of blood tests, x-rays and scans that were mentioned in a Daily Mail article.
He asks if the singer ever authorised this information to be disclosed by the newspaper.
"No, never," Sir Elton replies.
Sherborne then mentions reference of a "cocktail of injections" including an adrenaline shot and asks the same question.
"Absolutely not," Sir Elton says.
Sherborne finishes his questioning, meaning Sir Elton's evidence has now come to an end.

Elton has finished his evidence - but a bit of a damp squib

Lots of innuendo but I am still not seeing a a clear thread between feelings/suspicions and ANL

Loads of people could have passed on this medical information. There isn't any evidence of illegal activity by ANL.

Besides, this episode took place in 2009. Even lots of claims by the other claimants that they didn't realise until recently (because not a lot went on to be published), there is no way that Sir Elton didn't know about a newspaper article that was actually published in 2009. Ditto the birth certificate.

This case seems very confused. The celebrities are (naturally) unhappy that private information has been published without their permission , or authorisation as it says in this quote, and want compensation.

But printing private information about people isn't illegal. They don't seem to have any proof that the information was obtained illegally beyond "my friend would never leak", which isn't evidence, or "I was told that" which isn't evidence either.

I'm confused why the case was brought.

I think the ultimate goal of the financial backers of this case (Max Mosely, Hacked Off, Hugh Grant, Liz Hurley, Elton and perhaps more) is to have a Leveson 2 enquiry to curb press freedoms so that newspapers can't print articles that celebrities don't like.

They are trying to prove that illegal activity was a "British press culture" where all newspapers used UIG. With the Sun and Mirror the cases were easier as they had already admitted wrongdoing at the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 - but ANL have always denied it and, so far, after 3 weeks, we haven't heard specifics.

So we heard from Elton that he was "traumatised" by the articles yet never complained (even though he has sued in the past)

Elton John had a super injunction so he could not sue previously because nothing was printed in the U.K. during the time period it ran , this and other celebrities managing to get secret super injunctions for non serious reasons, is why judges stepped in and put a stop to the practice.

I called what happened to EJ and DF ‘shit’. Is that OK?

But it’s the claimants who are taking the late racist perve Max Mosely’s monies and not providing, seemingly, any evidence that ANL carried out UIG. That’s a matter of public interest and I’ll discuss it on a public discussion board if I choose. Freedom of speech and all that.

And I’ll not be happy if Harry is shown to have roped Doreen Lawrence into an unwinnable court case based on compromised ‘evidence’ that costs her dearly in terms of reputation and finances. I think potentially she’s showing a vulnerability to suggestions because of her experiences in the past. Again, these are public figures and it is in the public interest and within the remit of freedom of speech to have the case reported on and discussed.

I am hoping some of the sources will come out in ANL info as I would put money on it that their friends are sources. Lets not forget the reason George Michael fell out with Elton because he was a gossip with the press, he had no compunction giving others private info away. Elton also had listening/snooping devices on his plane (caught H&M out) funny harry hasnt sued elton for that invasion!
It sounds like Elton was looking for an argument and disappointed he wasnt important enough to be on the stand for more than a few hours. I suspect ANL know exactly where the stories came from.
I bet Murdoch wishes he had the backbone to go to court, except I suspect he was guilty. It has cost him millions anyway and most to claimant solicitors.

TBH I think both Harry and Doreen were duped into it. The backers and Sherborne needed people who would bring maximum publicity

Is Sherborne still trying to prevent his own witness from giving evidence?