I'm not sure why Sherborne called this witness.
I suppose it was an attempt to establish that SF didn't see evidence in 2016 - but she was clearly on notice that she might have a claim - funny how the "evidence" magically appeared 5-6 years later in the 2021 dossier from a convicted criminal who then retracted it in 2023.🙄
Reading the report of the evidence from the lawyer today - it seems that some of the legal teams are trying to distance themselves from Evan Harris/Graham Johnson and Hacked Off - he called them liars and yet his clients are basing their cases on evidence produced by these men. Worried about their professional registration?
“Evan doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” he told the court. “I’m seriously surprised and concerned about the content of this email.”
Other emails sent in 2016 and 2017 suggested that James Heath, a partner at Mr Thomson’s firm, had been “lined up to sue the Mail for hacking”.
But Mr Thomson said he was entirely unaware that his colleague was involved, admitting that it was “extraordinary” he had not been told and that he was shocked and disappointed when he found out.
Mr White suggested that his evidence was untrue. He said it was “inconceivable” that given the solicitor’s lengthy experience in representing hacking victims against other newspaper groups he could have been “wholly unaware” of a potential raft of legal claims against Associated.
https://archive.is/SX1Rb
... and I really don't understand what sort of solicitor would allow their client to comment in the press in 2019 about a dossier of evidence if neither had seen it!
He continued: “Evan provided no evidence at all.
“It was a fairly typical Evan meeting, where he promises stuff and does not deliver.”
He added: “He did not provide anything of use.”
Mr White later said: “You would inevitably have wanted to see that evidence and take a copy, unless you had already seen it.”
Mr Thomson replied: “I wanted the evidence, I wanted a copy, and he did not produce it.”
The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, then asked Mr Thomson: “Did it not strike you as odd that (Dr Harris) said he had got no evidence when he expressly referred to having evidence?”
Mr Thomson replied: “Yes it did.”
In written submissions, Mr White previously said that Ms Frost “had at least constructive knowledge of this claim by the October 2016 cut-off date”.
During cross-examination, Mr White also referred to an article published by Mr Johnson in 2019, which Ms Frost has said was the first time she discovered she could have a claim against ANL.
Prior to the article being published, Mr Johnson approached Ms Frost for comment through Mr Thomson and offered to “hand over our dossier of evidence” that Ms Frost had been subject to alleged unlawful activities.
Mr Thomson did not ask to see the dossier, but accepted Mr White’s suggestion that its “significance is obvious”.
Mr White said: “It would have taken moments to send an email back asking for the evidence if you did not already know about it.”
Mr Thomson later denied the claim that he had seen the evidence at the meeting in 2016 as “completely untrue”.
https://archive.is/6dTVQ#selection-809.0-1358.0