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 not sure how much interest we will get today, apparently the court is pretty empty today compared to previously 🤷‍♀️

I know of him as one of the contenders for the leadership of the Lib Dems, and a fairly prominent MP at that time, but not further than that.

He is a former Liberal Democrat MP - IIRC he was deputy leader of the LDs under Nick Clegg

Interestingly the CEO of Hacked Off - Evan Harris - is also a former Lib Dem MP

Interesting @Lunde! , I will admit @bluegreygreen, my political interest at that time ( particularly the Lib Dems) was completely absent! , unless there was a huge scandal I’m afraid it passed me by.

Email about 'Mail business' sent in 2016Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Ltd, continues his line of questioning over whether Sir Simon Hughes had evidence of a potential claim prior to the 2022 legal action.
Sir Simon Hughes is asked about another email, sent by Dr Evan Harris in March 2016, in which he was asked about "the Mail business".
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Ltd, suggests it means Sir Simon's attempt to explain he had no evidence against the Mail's publisher in 2016 is "convoluted and untruthful".
Sir Simon apologises if it was "convoluted" but denies anything in his statement is "untruthful".

Does anyone else think the grammar and reports from sky is rubbish compared to the bbc ( and I’m no fan) , that was a cut and paste and it’s terrible!

'I would love to sue them' - court shown emails involving Sir Simon's partnerAntony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, now pulls up a February 2016 email between Dr Evan Harris to Sir Simon Hughes's partner at the time of the allegations, who is known as HJK.
It says "through a whistleblower we have made a breakthrough perhaps in your case - in relation to the Daily Mail (actually Mail on Sunday)".
Sir Simon tells the court: "I knew of no breakthrough".
He is also taken through a series of emails between himself and HJK.
In one from April 2016, HJK says: "I would love it if we could prove the DM (Daily Mail) has lied in court (Leveson and all). That would be fun. And I would love to sue them."
Sir Simon says: "I had not been in any discussion with HJK about any case he was taking."
He says there "was no coordination at any stage", adding: "He looked after his own interests and I left him to it. "

I think they're typing in real time and then editing - the piece in one of your posts about being 'convoluted' has been moved from one I copied to a later post.

I prefer them to BBC as they include more direct information.

That last paragraph about loving to sue and wanting to prove them guilty, is a shocker! , it seems to imply a grudge and trying to make a case.

Yes - and while it's not SH saying it, it's hard for him to then say he had no knowledge of any case.

I didn’t see the comparisons between their reports because I only followed the bbc link when it was available!
I did wonder where “mr mischief “ was mentioned though! 🤣

I’m no lawyer or expert but to me it seems obvious they are all lying their heads off! , I can’t believe the judge has allowed this case to proceed, of course we don’t know what DL will say 🤷‍♀️

Short break till 12.05 apparently ! , no wonder court cases take so long!

SH was also a Lib Dem MP at the same time as Evan Harris - for 13 years. Harris is CEO of Hacked Off

It all seems to be a very small world where (except for Harry so far) the plaintiffs all knew each other and discussed legal action long before they claim they became aware of the facts

It does seem very suspicious! , apart from Harry and DL it does appear they were all in cohoots together, it makes it seem all the more obvious exactly why those two were brought into this case.

Ex-Lib Dem MP denies giving untruthful account
before the break, Sir Simon Hughes was being asked about an April 2016 meeting between him, Dr Evan Harris and former tabloid journalist turned investigator Graham Johnson.
Antony White KC suggests they did discuss the "Mail business" (see 11.31 post), which included evidence on which he could base a potential claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd.
"Absolutely not," says Sir Simon.
White suggests he would've been shown the evidence of the 2006 emails whistleblower Greg Miskiw, a former journalist, had sent them, but he says he was "shown nothing" and that it was "not discussed".
The barrister suggests his "account of the meeting is not a truthful account".
"It is a truthful account," Sir Simon tells the court. "There was no evidence shown to me or given to me."

They usually take a break every hour to lessen repetitive strain injuries among court reporters who are recording the proceedings. I remember them discussing this at the Post Office inquiry

I once had to deal with an extremely challenging legal situation with an ex-business partner.

This man one million percent believed that we had tried to destroy his business when we ended our contractual relationship with him. In spite of the fact we had a robustly evidenced paper trail of the fact that we wanted to end the contract generously exceeding the contractual terms, what he THOUGHT we'd said and what he'd FELT about that were considered prime.

He launched a series of attacks on our business for over a year based on those beliefs. It's quite frightening to know that people like that exist, and being on the receiving end put me out of work through stress.

But I imagine Harry has a more limited capacity to remember details, in fairness. He reminds me of another ex colleague (who incidentally tried to half-in half-out working for our business whilst also moving to California with his wife - he was ginger too!). Not remotely involved enough in the detail to understand what was going on, didn't need to remember because that was someone else's job.

Cross post with a cheeky update they added after! 🤣

That sounds like a really hard time to go through.

I'm betting Harry never had to worry about details in the Royal family and can't seem to learn how .

Do you have any idea how frightening giving evidence is let alone being cross examined?! I watch from the back and know that I’d struggle to not find the process intimidating.

Tech troubles in courtThe morning break has run on a little longer than planned as the court is experiencing a technical issue.
Judge Mr Justice Nicklin says he will return at 12.30pm when he hopes the issue will be fixed.
In the meantime, we can bring you a little from Sir Simon Hughes's written statement, which was released this morning.

I've been in court several times as a professional (not expert) witness. That was stressful enough, and I was very clear about my evidence.

I can't imagine how stressful it is if you're trying to be careful not to say certain things, or answer in specific ways.

Indeed! , I may have to disappear for a little bit @bluegreygreen, my dads dog has just died and I need to phone x

I wonder if the judge is allowing it as a lesson to future claimants that if you lose you lose big, so proceed with caution, don't be talked into it by show boating glory hound solicitors for their own attention seeking vanity!
I have absolutely no clue who SH is or remember any stories that may have hurt or embarrassed him. That is also mirrored in the lack of attendance and press coverage, it seems no one cares about him.