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

Leveson 2, but funded by Hurley, Hughes, Frost, Harry, Lawrence and the rest ( but not Hugh - " sorry wanted to, but <blah blah blah>).

Good point @Rhaidimiddim

Has there been any word on what is happening with Gareth Burrows? He was the claimants' key witness but it's all gone very quiet......

Nut given that ANL seem to have begun their defence case with Dacre it seems that Burrows is not appearing with the claimants' main evidence... Has bouffant blocked him? Is Burrows MIA? Is Nicklin going to throw out his evidence?

@Lunde this was at the bottom of a Guardian report from the day Anjlee Sangani gave evidence earlier this week:

It remains unclear whether Burrows will be questioned during the trial, though the judge has said the chances of that happening are “diminishing by the day”. Burrows is overseas and will give evidence from a secret location.

ANL's head of legal, Liz Hartley, is giving evidence today, according to PA (looks like it started yesterday, after Dacre). Don't expect much will come from that publicly as she's not one of the 'star' witnesses.

It would explain the huge costs - the lawyers spending time marshalling info on generic- practice stuff- and the lack pf specific evidence against ANL

I wonder if the plaintiffs bought into this approach.

If the Burrows' evidence gets excluded it leaves the claimants with very little as most of the headline grabbing accusations came from the Burrows' "dodgy dossier" that was recanted in 2023.

Exactly, @Lunde - it's really curious. What I'm not at all clear on is whether Burrows' original statement still stands as part of the claimants' evidence (and ultimately, whether the judge can take it into consideration) or whether it's been over-ruled by his updated statement.

Anjlee Sangani was certainly questioned about her role in preparing it, which seems to have been based on Johnson's notes from his interviews with Burrows. That suggests it's still in play. Presumably the weight it's given is for the judge to decide.

Surely it can’t be taken into account if the defendants can’t cross examine,

That was my first thought, OccasionalHope

As a layperson I get why the Bouffant One might be dubious about Burrows being questioned, but then if the guy's so unreliable why build a case on his evidence in the first place?

I think we know why puzzled , it was the only way to make a case and bring the claimants on board, I’m of course speculating but it seems entirely clear that they assumed the dm would settle and payout without going to court.

Definitely with you on the likelihood of them hoping ANL would settle, jeff, but while I know little about the law, pinning so much on someone like Burrows seems risky at best

Maybe, if his pet witness has turned out to be hopeless, that's another reason Sherborne keeps bring irrelevancies into it, in the hope of finding something - anything - to shore the case up?

I think you are correct here puzzled , his approach is definitely throwing enough crap at it with the hope something sticks!
he seems very emotional as does his clients and it’s not a good look when up against a more staid factual defence.
the judge is not happy and has continued to bollock him for not staying on topic , this will not help his case .
frankly I’m surprised it was even allowed to make it to court.

I agree with the other posters that this seems to have been aimed at getting the DM to settle and Sherborne then bringing In more claimants.

Agree.

But I don't understand why none of the claimants sat down and asked if they could win this.

I just can't imagine risking £32, let alone £32 million based on the evidence they havent got

Will each of the claimants be liable for an equal amount ie £32million divided by x? I know there is some insurance - but will this cover all costs in all eventualities - and how much would that premium have cost and have they all paid for it?

There is a clear discrepancy between the relative wealth of each of the claimants - are some just broke / desperate / greedy and other loaded flashing the cash to stick it to the tabloids - even happy enough if they don’t win.

I would question if the insurance is even valid.

All insurance policies have a clause that you have been 100% truthful or they don't pay out.
If they have said they have evidence of wrong doing then they will be expected to back that up with facts...we haven't seen any yet.

The fact that burrows (main witness) said 2 years ago that his statement was a forgery should have stopped Sherborn in his tracks. I suspect burrows was happy to do it for money but not when he realised it was going to court.
Celebrities got used to getting pay outs without proof due to newspapers not acting lawfully. They have hit a brick wall with ANL whose own legal team understand the difference between what someone suspects and what they can prove.
Sherborn still makes millions win or lose. Frankly I would be shitting myself if I was one of the claimants, unless there is a last min tadah smoking gun.
Cue harry interview saying he was never told he may not win! Again.

Edited to say: I don't doubt some of the stuff they say is true but proving it was ANL and not the sun or mirror would be difficult. I think thats why they got confused on the stand as some of it was clearly reported elsewhere first.

The fact that burrows (main witness) said 2 years ago that his statement was a forgery should have stopped Sherborn in his tracks

Hang on, @binkie163; I hadn't realised it was two years since Burrows said that - or is it being claimed the claimants' legal team only became aware of his forgery allegations recently?

Because if they knew about it 2 years ago, why on earth would they build a case on sometthing like that??

Fairly sure it 2023 he said nope not my signature, not my statement. I will have to check now.
Its why it was assumed there was proof of blagging, phone taps etc because who in their right mind would go ahead on the word of professional liars? (investigators lie for a living)
and go ahead to the tune of £38 million! it seems to have been a game of poker for sherborn.

Yes Burrows retracted his statement in March 2023 - so 3 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/29/witness-in-prince-harrys-case-against-daily-mail-owner-unreliable-say-lawyers

No need, binkie - I just checked and you're right that it was 2023 when Burrows said it was a forgery - so unless the legal team are going to pretend they either didn't know or admit they didn't do enough research it makes no sense to me to use it

Edited to thank you too, @Lunde - that's actually the article I found

So that’s £32 million divided by 6? So PH, LH, SF, BL, SH, EJ up for losing £5.5million each - what were they expecting any payout to be? Could some of them win and some of them lose?

Sorry see it’s £38 million divided so £6,300,000 in costs each - I can’t imagine most of those claimants have that sort of money.

I think it was @kirinm earlier in the thread who said there was specific insurance called 'after the event (ATE)' insurance for this kind of case, and they have lawyers who review the insurance at every step.

Re the costs: if I remember correctly, some of the claimants' costs are joint, and some are individual (presumably work done for the specific cases). So I don't think it would be an exact division between seven claimants.
It is one of the reasons that Judge Nicklin warned about the costs at one of the pre-trial hearings. If some claimants win and some lose, the losers could potentially be liable to pay not only ANL costs (if awarded) but also all the joint claimant costs.