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

ANL's Barrister, White, seems determined not to allow the trial to become a grandstanding opportunity for celebs to whine about the press in vague general terms.

Harry tried to do this by bringing up Diana and Meghan and found himself off the stand very quickly.

I also have a memory of it being reported that St Diana ‘outed’ George Michael too, through a jokey indiscretion at a reception.

Here it is. The report originates with Dickie Arbiter - is he a credible source for this kind of thing?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13182531.new-book-princess-diana-almost-outed-george-michael-prince-harry/

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.

@kirinm I have tried on my posts on the thread to be balanced an d remember that we have a lot of evidence still to hear from both sides.
I do think I'm being reasonable when I say that we haven't heard definite evidence of illegality so far. Much of what we have heard is people being upset at stories - understandably, but that doesn't constitute illegal practice by ANL.

Just catching up on this morning's posts - thanks @Lunde for updating from the court reporting

The problem with attempting to legislate against currently legal, but potentially immoral, tactics, is that it takes away from a free press.

A free press is an essential part of our democracy.

@CraftyGin This is where I stand. I don't usually read tabloids - I know little about the stories that have been discussed on this thread. If ANL have acted illegally, they should be found guilty and punished. If not, not.

Agree - and the claimants have previous been told they should not try to turn this into a public inquiry

I think you're right @Lunde - and that's what Graham Johnson's evidence would suggest, alongside the Reddit lawyer's comments in the first extract posted.

Judge Nicklin, however, told the claimants that they had to prove wrongdoing by ANL as they hadn't previously been found guilty.

The trouble is, to prove guilt, there needs to be a clear evidential trail of information passing from the person to ANL by illegal (rather than unsavoury) means, and no-one has yet shown that.

Sorry for multiple posts!

So far - 3 weeks in - I am surprised at the lack of concrete evidence. So many of the celebrities seem to infer that any unflattering gossip that got out must have been gathered illegally because their family, friends, friends of friends, staff, witnesses present etc etc would never, ever tell anyone 🙄

The bit I found interesting is that I think all of the celebs have said that they didn't think they were victims of UIG at the time - but realised years later?

For people who have been traumatised by the press, they all continued to do business with the media afterwards, once a story is out they have no control over who else prints it. Its all so disingenuous.

I really don’t understand Elton John’s position on his medical information being published.

He says that ANL hacked it, but then says what they published about him was wrong.

So that suggests more that they weren’t hacking, doesn’t it? Rather, it suggests they were just guessing, and/or relying on misleading information being given to them by friends or staff.

Elton John then criticises a former member of staff (‘Mr Farrow’) for giving out … incorrect medical information to the press, which was then published!

So EJ has really shown nothing at all to support the presence of hacking. Rather the opposite? Or am I being spectacularly dim today??

Sir Elton John has claimed that his long-serving public relations manager provided incorrect information to the press …

… Sir Elton told the court that he did not have influenza and that “Mr Farrow got it completely wrong”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/06/elton-john-claims-pr-fed-wrong-information-to-press/

Rereading my own post - this was of course meant to say 'I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that we haven't heard definite evidence of illegality so far.'

Doh!

@TheAutumnCrow absolutely, good catch. Put like that there was little point in EJ testifying at all.

Yes @TheAutumnCrow it makes no sense

You're right @TheAutumnCrow - that argues against hacking

Friday's Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/a38aa2fb25593d77

It's good for ANL to point out the inconsistencies in his statements

It was even covered in the David Furnish evidence yesterday where the ANL barrister pointed out that the hospital story used 3 sources
Elton's website
Elton's PR guy (who apparently gave incorrect information 🙄)
A French newspaper who published a week or 2 before the DM

The baby birth certificate story was sourced through public information (Although EJ and DF are miffed because they had sold the story got a media strategy planned).

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/Dkz92

As you say, @TheAutumnCrow, lots of stuff about inaccuracies in the story so how does that mean hacking?

In his five-page witness statement, Sir Elton said he and Mr Furnish had no inkling of the alleged invasions of privacy until they were shown an alleged confession written by private investigator Gavin Burrows.

So, once again, no suspicion about illegal behaviour until told by the legal team/Burrows.

Mr Burrows has asked to give evidence remotely amid concerns for his personal safety following an alleged death threat.
But he has said he will only do so if the claimants’ lawyers are not told of his location, prompting a “conundrum” that Mr Justice Nicklin is trying to resolve.
The judge has acknowledged that Mr Burrows is an “extremely important” witness but warned that if he could not testify, he may have to strike his evidence from the claim.

The whole situation with Burrows' evidence is so interesting.
He has said his initial statement was 'a forgery', and has made a (second?) statement for the trial refuting it (making him a very shaky witness anyway, from my perspective).
As I understand it, the claimants can't call him as a witness, or question him, as they have asked for his evidence to be 'hearsay' evidence.
The defendants can call him and cross-examine him.
AW KC said he should be able to testify by video link (and gave examples), Sherborn objected.
The judge is saying if he can't testify all his evidence may need to be struck from the claim.
That would really affect the amount of evidence available.

Just playing with ChatGPT.

Summary of news reports for the week.

https://chatgpt.com/share/698626d6-3e98-800d-bccb-c5f1865b9770

I tend to agree with this. Harry would have been the perfect target bearing in mind his, totally understandable, suspicion of the press. Maybe this is why he seems to be giving evidence for an enquiry about what is an appropriate subject for the press to print rather than a court case about how the information was obtained.

If the Burrows evidence is chucked out then it gives the claimants a huge timeline problem - AFAIK the Burrows "dodgy dossier" that was shown to the claimants is the basis of most/all of their claims of
A) UIG
B) not realising they were "victims" before 2019-20 and not bringing claims earlier

I think Sherborne has a huge dilemma now

Does he let Burrows testify without "preparation" and not knowing what he might say about some of the tactics used by the claimants' team?
or
Does he continue to object knowing that the only real evidence for some of the claims could get chucked out?

Am I right in thinking that Sherborne gets paid either way?

I’m sure he’d prefer a win. But he’s good at dressing up a partial or non victory as something it’s not to the waiting media.

If the ONLY way ANL could have got the info was by illegal means, why didn't they realise at the time? Alternatively, they put it down to unethical but legal means, in which case how are they sure now that it could only have been by illegal methods?

It's all very odd.

Of course the tabloids (like anyone else) should be held accountable if they broke the law. But there does need to be some proof that they did break the law, surely?

I was thinking the about the evidence of DF and EJ about the "medical issue" they both stressed that they had been hacked/medical records accessed and that some of the article was "incorrect" about the tests/scans etc.

But doesn't the fact that they claim that the article was "factually wrong" undermine their case that their phones/records/doctors had been accessed? Surely the article would have been correct in that case? It sounds more like the (sacked) PR and gossipy friends were the source.

Yes! I’m glad I’m not alone in thinking this, @Lunde. It seems so glaringly obvious.

I know - both of them said words to the effect "they hacked our medical records but published the wrong information"!!