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 hoping to see the Streisand Effect kick in on SM.

Whereas I respect the privacy of celebrities whenever I have encountered them in everyday life, if I were to spot Petey out and about now, I would on principle get my phone out and take a pic.

Typo - I initially wrote 'stop' instead of 'spot'

Buying info may be unethical and definitely selling it is imo. But neither is illegal unless it is specific confidential info.

Let's face it, it hasn't been easy to blag info for quite some time especially since gdpr. You need to answer security questions with banks and most hospitals back then would send info to your GP to be picked up.
20 years ago they were still going through people's dustbins (not illegal) I often thought how foolish they were to put incriminating stuff in the bin! We have all known for years to shred bank statements and paperwork as criminals use it as well as police, journalists and investigators. If they don't take care with their privacy don't be surprised it's on the front page. How many civil servants have carelessly left files on the bus! Then squealing that it's reported in the papers.
Many more famous people live private lives because they are not stupid.

Let's face it, it hasn't been easy to blag info for quite some time especially since gdpr.

I actually don't agree with this, people like to talk, and it is surprising the amount of information you can gather with very little work if you are the right sort of person.

I have recently been able to find out very detailed information about a family member from medical staff, it was quite scary how easy I found it. (Relative knew I was going it)

The thing is though, the person doing something unlawful there is the person who can’t keep the confidential information to themselves.

There’s a perfect illustration of this from the case of Nigel Farage being de-banked from Coutts. Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of NatWest,who owned Coutts, had to resign after she sat next to a BCC journalist at a City dinner and told him details about Nigel Farage’s accounts. That’s a straightforward breach of banking confidentiality. I am quite sure the journalist asked her some leading questions, and may even have filled up her wine glass as he steered the conversation to controversial topics. But he was perfectly entitled to publish what she told him, and she had to step down from her City career.

Gossip, talking, being over heard, people like talking indeed, its how most stories make the front page but it isnt blagging.
Blagging involves deliberate deception and or impersonation to get confidential information. If obtained the person has breached gdpr. I am surprised none of the disgruntled 7 have brought gdpr complaints against those who have apparently handed over info, especially the surrogacy company.

I successfully got compensation from a bus company I complained to about the driver being drunk and smelling of booze. The driver was shown my email in his disciplinary hearing (including my email address) and I got some really threatening drunk emails which I took to the police, the driver ended up in court. I sent a letter to their gdpr officer and they made me an offer without admitting guilt, I was surprised and happy.

People are oblivious to how much info they give away freely. There used to be a thing going round facebook, first car, road you were born in, mothers name, a list of about 20 things used for security questions for identity fraud, everyone happily filling it in. People can be dumb as rocks.

It reminds me of that awful radio prank when Catherine was hospitalised during her pregnancy with George.

The presenters blagged the nurse, Jacintha Saldanha, by pretending to be the Queen, and she put the call through to Catherine’s ward. The second nurse then unknowingly shared information about her condition before realising it was a prank. Jacintha later took her own life, devastated by the humiliation of being pranked on a global stage and by the guilt of implicating her colleague.

I think some people don’t consider the consequences of their actions until it’s too late. In this case, the presenters only realised the gravity of what they had done after their actions contributed to a woman’s death and sparked intense public backlash.

Wasn't this all pre-GDPR legislation?

Absolutely but another poster said it is still easy to blag info.

A couple of months ago, those two idiots were still blaming their bosses for it. I mean, they couldn’t have imagined the consequences but ‘pranking’ a hospital is such sad juvenile behaviour.

It's really worrying that counsel doesn't seem to have picked up on this. Or have they but it's not been reported? If I ever need to litigate I'm using mumsnet to represent me!

I am fairly sure the legal team will have picked up on that! though. But the first rule of cross-examination is to stop asking questions when you’ve established the information you want to make the point in your closing submissions.

Asking the next question (“So Mr John, surely if the article was wrong about your condition then the journalist can’t actually have illegally obtained your medical notes?”) just invites an explanation that you don’t want!

Will be an interesting week ahead. The claimants’ witnesses are supposed to have finished testifying by close of play Tuesday - then ANL starts with Paul Dacre on Wednesday. So if Gavin Burrows is to appear, he’ll have to (I think) in the early part of this week.
I wonder if the sidebar case hearing, referred to upthread, was about Burrows and whether he would testify at all/remotely?

Isn’t Gavin Burrows a witness for ANL though? I thought the claimants can’t call him because they’re using his witness statement as hearsay evidence?

No he's the claimants witness - it's his "dodgy dossier" of claims that is the basis of most of the claims.

But now he says it was forged . Burrows disavowed the statement in 2023 and says the claimants have threatened him so he doesn't want the claimants or Sherborne to know his location.

Which is a huge dilemma now for the claimants and they are now saddled with a witness that they don't know what he'll say.
Sherborne/Claimants wanted to use his statement as hearsay evidence and let the statement stand and don't want him to testify without knowing his location.
White/ANL have objected and said they have the right to cross-examine evidence that the claimants are relying on
The Judge said that Sherborne had to decide whether to call him and could apply for Burrows to be treated as a hostile witness but if he didn't testify his evidence might be excluded entirely.

He's such an unreliable witness they should both exclude him tbh.

But @Lunde as I understand it, the claimants want to use his evidence as 'hearsay' evidence only.
This means they can't call him or cross-examine him - only the defence can do that. Is that not correct?

As I understood the discussion at the pretrial hearing in November - if it is called hearsay evidence there is no cross examination and White/ANL have asked for cross examination. Nicklin said that the claimants needed to decide whether to call him or not but that they could apply to treat him as a hostile witness

The court is now hearing legal arguments about whether Mr Burrows will be called as a witness for the trial, scheduled to take place in January.
David Sherborne, the barrister representing the group, has made an application to call Mr Burrows' evidence as hearsay, while defence lawyer for ANL, Antony White KC, has asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Mr Burrows.
Mr Justice Nicklin said Mr Sherborne could have seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call Mr Burrows, and that if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as "hostile".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0g762pwnpo

Burrows is a pivotal witness as many of the claimants are relying on information in his statement as their main evidence of UIG. There were some angry exchanges last week between Sherborne and the judge with Sherborne attempting to block his own witness and Judge Nicklin saying the evidence needed to be tested in open court.

In a bad-tempered exchange with Mr Justice Nicklin, David Sherborne, for the claimants, alleged that Mr Burrows was effectively holding the court “to ransom” by putting conditions on his participation.
He said his purported safety fears were “utterly spurious” and that the approach was “highly unorthodox”.
The barrister argued that Mr Burrows should be blocked from giving evidence if he did not disclose his location.
He said the claimants had been put in an “invidious” position but had a right to know where the witness was in order to ensure justice was served and that he was taking part free from interference or coaching.

Judge ‘incredulous’ at barrister’s demand
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Ltd, said that in lockdown he had been involved in cases that had taken evidence from abroad and “even a bedsit on the south coast”.
The judge appeared incredulous that Mr Sherborne might seek to prevent such a key witness from giving evidence.
He said there was “no dispute” that Mr Burrows’ evidence was extremely important to the claimants’ case and should be tested in open court.
He eventually agreed to ask the Foreign Office whether there was any legal reason why he could not give evidence from abroad.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/03/prince-harrys-team-sent-private-investigator-death-threat/

The solicitor involved in the statement authenticion is not available either, she has left the country and is not available.

pressgazette.co.uk/news/most-serious-allegation-against-mail-struck-out-ahead-of-prince-harry-privacy-trial/

Thanks @Lunde

We had some discussion on the previous thread in November around the practicalities of hearsay evidence and whether the defence could then call the witness to testify - the above was my understanding but I may well have got it confused. Happy for one of our legal friends to clarify!

@Justdancevance Thanks for that
Archive link https://archive.is/BB263
Interesting extract

It said the statement purports to have been taken by solicitor Anjlee Sangani. But after asking her to confirm its authenticity, Associated was informed in November that Sangani was no longer representing Lawrence, Hurley, Sir Elton and Furnish and had in fact “moved abroad for personal and professional reasons”.
Associated notes that Sangani’s signature confirmed the statement was prepared in accordance with legal rules which include: no leading questions, no pressure of any kind and that it be prepared by a lawyer.
Associated contends that the statement was not taken by Sangani but by Graham Johnson and drafted on the basis of notes he made at various meetings.
It said: “Ms Sangani was not present when the 16 August 2021 statement was signed. It is clear she has no direct knowledge of whether or how this was done.”

If true, I think as a lawyer I wouldn't be keen to sign a statement taken by Graham Johnson ...

I just googled the lawyer Anjlee Sangani, and the testimonial section on her webpage is hilarious- Hugh Grant considers her to be "brave", and she is Liz Hurley's "favourite lawyer in the world", apparently. Half of her testimonials are from claimants in this trial (plus David Sherborne), and the other half are from a variety of Goldsmiths/ Khans.

Sounds like a review you would leave a hairdresser

This all stinks to the high heaven.

Bloody hell, thanks for the reminder of how incredibly weak this case seems to be.

It occurs to me also: Harry has repeatedly, and on the record, accused the royal family and courtiers (‘the Firm’) of ‘leaking and planting’ stories about him & M; so again, why would the Mail need to be spying on him to get their stories?

I’m afraid most of the claimants by their own words have given a defence to ANL, notably the two ‘star’ claimants Doreen Lawrence and Harry M-W.