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

Paul Dacre was right. Hugh Grant was setting up the press and using his children.

Yrs, it was at the Heritage Foundation attempt to get his visa info. The lawyers implied his drug use was fictional.

And Sherborne, Dacre and Grant crossed swords in other ways at Leveson in 2012.

See, for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/06/leveson-inquiry-sue-akers-paul-dacre-live

It was certainly all covered in the Leveson Inquiry.

Seems like Hugh Grant and Sherborne are trying to have another run at it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16909539#:~:text=%22Mr%20Grant%20has%20spent%20his,of%20the%20World%20had%20closed.

Thanks @TheAutumnCrow

Archive link to Guardian report https://archive.is/fqXNe

Paul Dacre is next asked about evidence he gave on oath at the Leveson Inquiry in 2012.
He was asked during the inquiry about work undertaken for the Daily Mail by private investigator Steve Whittamore, and whether he accepted it was a possibility that some of the inquiries "could not be justified" by the explanations given.
Dacre responded at Leveson:
"I would accept there was a prima facie case that Whittamore could have been acting illegally.
"I don't accept that this is evidence that our journalists were actively behaving illegally.
"We have to know the facts, whether there was a public interest.
"We don't know what the journalists asked for, we don't know what it related to and whether it actually was provided, whether the information was actually provided."
Whittamore is accused of unlawful acts, including obtaining ex-directory numbers and other private information, by the claimants in this trial.
Whittamore has said in written evidence that he was "working to order" for Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) and never provided information beyond what was requested.
Sherborne pushes Dacre in particular on his statement to Leveson that "we don't know what journalists asked for".
Surely it was known, based on evidence in ANL invoices to private investigators, Sherborne argues.
He uses a particular example, which he says suggests journalists had asked for a "CR [criminal record] check".
ANL has accepted Whittamore's evidence in full, Sherborne points out to Dacre - as he tried to suggest this contradicts what Dacre told Leveson.
Dacre tells the court he was not aware of ANL accepting Whittamore's testimony.
"I haven't discussed this case in that kind of detail with [counsel for ANL]. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of witness statements," he says.
Dacre maintains that he does not accept Whittamore would only provide details he was asked to obtain.
He rejects David Sherborne's suggestion that his explanation is "completely untrue".

Looking back at the transcript of Leveson from the Guardian, @TheAutumnCrow, I see that Leveson had to intervene with Sherborne a couple of times at that point.

5.33pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that this particular dispute has achieved a significance "that maybe rather large than it merits" and that Dacre's statement details extensively his newspaper's relationship with Hugh Grant.
5:51pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that it is unacceptable for Dacre to be questioned on issues on which he has not been pre-notified, but accepts that the issue of Grant and the Mail's "mendacious smears" statement has become "totemic". He adds that it is fair to everybody that it is "resolved rather more carefully" than at present.
Leveson does not rule out that Dacre might be recalled "shortly" if the matters are not resolved.

Judge Mr Justice Nicklin once again steps in to tell David Sherborne his line of questioning is not "relevant".
Sherborne was attempting to ask Paul Dacre about the work of private investigator Lee Harpin, who was identified by a Mail on Sunday journalist as the source of information for a story about politician Luciana Berger.
The story prompted a complaint to the police from Berger, who is not a claimant in this case.
Dacre repeatedly says he has no knowledge of Harpin's work.
Judge Nicklin dismisses the line of questioning, saying it is not helpful to him.
"Next question, please," he says sharply to Sherborne.

Proceedings paused for lunch - to resume at 2 pm.

Why are they keen to have another Leverson?

Can those paying Sherborne get a refund for all his irrelevant questioning?

I think, @RecoIIectionsMayVary, it relates to them wanting to have more control over what the media can report. It links in with Harry's pronouncements on the First Amendment in the US.

It seems to me that some celebrities see media organisations as an extension of their own PR organisations, and feel they should be able to approve stories before publication. Much of what has been suggested as 'illegal' so far in this case has simply been unpleasant or upsetting.

That doesn't mean I would like it if I were on the front page in the same way - I would hate it. I do think though, there are things celebrities can do if they don't like the headlines (by which I mean take more care with their own information and social circle), and I think having a free press overrides discomfort, especially in the week a British citizen has been jailed in China for 20 years.

Some analysis on the Sky page:

Analysis: This is a significant, last-gasp chance for answers - but Dacre is mounting a robust defence
By Katie Spencer, arts and entertainment correspondent
To many, Paul Dacre is the embodiment of the British media. He is one of the longest-serving and most powerful newspaper editors in Fleet Street. Few have held such sustained power.
He is arguably one of the last great editor-barons whose style has been unapologetically opinionated and often polarising. Someone who seemed to wield as much influence behind the scenes as he did in print.
Dacre's political influence has been significant. Under his reign, the Mail played a major role in shaping debates on Brexit, immigration and what we've come to dub today as the "culture wars".
To critics who see the British press as unnecessarily adversarial, Dacre is a lightning rod. Someone who symbolises sensationalism and hostility towards public figures his paper takes against.
Which is why this is such a significant moment, not only for the claimants in the case but for the British media.
It's a last-gasp chance for answers about a time that is almost viewed now as a journalistic Wild West.
The second part of the Leveson Inquiry should have tackled the unfinished business of whether there were corporate cover-ups.
When it was shelved in 2018, victims of hacking and unlawful information gathering lost the opportunity to put tougher questions to senior figures like Dacre.
This case is the best chance they've got to grill one of the most significant figures in modern journalism.
Will they get the answers they want?
So far, Dacre has mounted a robust defence of the work of his journalists.

ETA: Possibly explains why they're trying to re-run Leveson

Thanks bemused! I thought so but it’s difficult to keep track of all the goings ons ! 👍

Simply because that’s how Sherborne made his career and money first time around, another one would add to his fame and fortune!
this is a personal ego trip for him which is why the judge keeps telling him to knock it off.

Paul Dacre is now being asked about April 2006 email exchanges between convicted phone hacker Greg Miskiw and former Mail on Sunday senior editor Chris Anderson.
David Sherborne, lawyer for the claimants, says emails from Miskiw contain details from private voicemail messages of a former nanny for actress Sadie Frost.
Anderson replies: "Thanks Greg – we're going to give her a knock."
Dacre replies he's not sure what a knock means - but Sherborne suggests he knows very well it's a common term in journalism, for approaching someone at their home for a comment.
Sherborne also shows Dacre evidence of what he says is a payment to Miskiw for tips involving Frost and former Lib Dem politician Sir Simon Hughes.
Ex-Daily Mail editor Dacre tells the court he is "not aware of the small details of this story".
Dacre has maintained throughout his questioning that he was not across matters involving the Mail on Sunday as the paper was "autonomous", despite being under the same publisher as the Mail.
Dacre says the emails suggest Miskiw was "desperate to get work out of the Mail on Sunday", and there's no evidence to suggest he was commissioned.
He suggests Anderson could have been "being polite".

Again, this is just Sherborne either being wilfully ignorant, badly advised, or he just doesn't care - until very recently, the Mail on Sunday was an entirely separate entity from the Daily Mail (politically, too - it backed Remain) and Dacre had nothing to do with it.

Sky’s Katie Spencer was nearly right. Leveson 2 was primarily meant to investigate the relationship between journalists (in particular those employed by News International) and the police, as well as corporate governance failures at news organisations.

David Sherborne's line of questioning is focusing on what Paul Dacre knew about Associated Newspapers Ltd's dealings with various private investigators and freelancers.
Sherborne touches on the infamous Mail on Sunday "plummy-gate" story which first led to actor Hugh Grant making phone hacking claims against Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Freelancer Sharon Feinstein is alleged to have been the source of the story, which was authored by Mail on Sunday journalist Katie Nicholl.
Lawyers for the claimants in the privacy trial have cast doubt over Feinstein's argument that her information was gathered from confidential "sources" - and have accused of her of being involved in "blagging" private details.
Dacre told the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 that he believed Feinstein "had been impeccably accurate in the past".
Questioned on this in court, he reiterates that he was not across the workings of the Mail on Sunday, and says he "regrets" not saying this at the Leveson Inquiry.

Paul Dacre "categorically" denies a suggestion by David Sherborne that he was aware of allegations of cash bribes being paid to corrupt police officers at the time of the Leveson Inquiry.
Dacre told the inquiry:
"I unequivocally condemn the bribing of police and use of phone hacking."
In his witness statement for this case against Associated Newspapers Ltd, Dacre also said it was "simply a given that Daily Mail journalists did not pay police officers".
But Sherborne says there is evidence that investigations into such activities were taking place before the inquiry, and suggests to Dacre that he knew of this before he gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.
"I categorically deny that," Dacre tells the court.
He adds that it was "written into the blood of the Daily Mail" that bribery was not permitted.

Judge Mr Justice Nicklin reminds David Sherborne of his 3pm deadline and his questioning of Paul Dacre ends.
The former Daily Mail editor answered questions in the witness box for around five-and-a-half hours in total.

@bluegreygreen
Thank you for your amazing work, helps this numpty understand a little bit of it all! 💐

Sterling work @bluegreygreen, thank you

Telegraph Wednesday:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/3420edfb21975a43

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/ybaKb

I think that report, alongside @TheAutumnCrow's Guardian report on Leveson upthread, makes it even clearer that this case really is a continuation of the Hacked Off campaign against the DM.

Thanks for the positive comments - I think this has been a great thread (both threads). I've appreciated the insight from people with experience in different areas and with different viewpoints.

Also appreciate everyone's contributions with links/references.