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 noticing that both SH and SF yesterday have been insistent that no-one showed them any evidence about possible claims.

As far as I understand it, the time limitation doesn't apply to having seen the evidence, but to having been made aware of a possible claim. Is this correct?

Very true and you could be correct!

Yes, I get the impression there's a lot of telling one's own truth here. Implausible claims where the person saying them might well pass a lie detector test.

But the no longer very famous ones must really want the money to be dragging this up now. I expect I'd have gone through the rest of my life never thinking again about Sadie Frost's daughter picking up a pill off the floor, if not for these proceedings serving as an aide memoire.

I’m back! , yes I think that was what @Serensterexplained yesterday! , at least SH isn’t blubbing yet!

Court resumes. We’re back underway now the technical difficulties have been resolved.

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

I suppose, as we're not in court, we are limited by only hearing the 'reportable' bits of the evidence - we're not hearing the boring bits which may be more believable.

We've also yet to hear any of the 'technical' evidence.

I think also it is in effect 7 cases being heard as one, so different parts may be true for different cases.

(Can you tell I'm trying to be very reasonable?)

We can bring you some detail now from Sir Simon Hughes's written witness statement, which was released by the court this morning.
The former Lib Dem MP's claim relates back to 2006, after he was "outed" for being gay in an article by The Sun, which is published by News Group Newspapers.
Lawyers for all seven claimants in the Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) case say the front-page story "generated enormous interest" in Sir Simon from other papers.
It's alleged former News of the World journalist Greg Miskiw co-ordinated the targeting of Sir Simon by unlawful acts, including voicemail interception, which were carried out by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Miskiw is said to have been in communication with Chris Anderson at the Mail on Sunday, published by ANL, about Sir Simon's relationship with a person known as HJK.
In his statement, Sir Simon says he "found shocking the possibility that the targeting of me was part of wider behaviour by Associated in targeting individuals unlawfully", which was "even more unacceptable" in the light of "aggressive denials" by bosses at the Leveson inquiry.
'Necessary to make sure victims are protected'
He says he brought the claim "because I have always believed that those who were responsible for these wrongdoings should not be allowed to get away with them without being forced to accept responsibility".
"I saw this as necessary, not principally in my own self-interest but to make sure that those who were victims of illegality by large and influential organisations in the media and those working for them and who do not have influential positions themselves have the chance to change this imbalance and abuse of power and to be protected against it, not just for now but also for the future."
Sir Simon says in the statement "it is distressing to realise" that ANL "targeted me as well as others using unlawful means and the use of private investigators for the purposes of their own profit".
"The fact that they have remained completely unapologetic for this illegal behaviour is also distressing."
ANL firmly denies all of the allegations made against it.

You are doing better than me ! 🤣 , I’m trying to take everything at face value ( and failing obviously) .

Except for at least 6 years, Prince Harry knew that Hugh Grant was supportive of him and Meghan. Just saying

www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/15/hugh-grant-defends-harry-tabloids-effectively-murdered-mother-stormzy-meghan

Now again I’m no expert ( at all) but reading that , this seems about ngn , and I’m sure that if the sun published it first then they are responsible, regardless of others publishing their story? ( correct me if wrong) .

"I saw this as necessary, not principally in my own self-interest but to make sure that those who were victims of illegality by large and influential organisations in the media and those working for them and who do not have influential positions themselves have the chance to change this"

As honourable as those intentions are, they are not a basis to start a legal claim. The reason needs to be cold hard evidence, not feelings, however worthy.

With all due respect, the people involved are used to public speaking and will also have been coached by the best.

If, I as a lay person go to court (ironically to gag me from whistleblowing on
the likes of this motley crew), it gets easier every time.

Oh - what I was referring to was the way that LH, SF, SH were all discussing/involved with legal action against ANL in 2015-2016 - so claiming that they only "found out" in 2019-20 is clearly rubbish.

Harry's claim seems to originate from meeting Sherborne at Elton's party in 2019 - but he seems to think that any article he didn't like must have been researched illegally but the actual facts seem pretty weak

Oh 👋 , how’s your case going @GwendolineFairfax8? , I know you can’t give details, thumbs up or thumbs down?

Court breaks for lunchThe court has risen for the lunch break and will resume at around 2pm.

Before lunch, Sir Simon Hughes continued to be questioned about messages and emails sent in 2016.
One email is from Hacked Off joint executive director Dr Evan Harris to a firm of solicitors on 7 April - two days after a meeting with Sir Simon - in which he says they had discussed whether he was "hacked" by other newspapers.
Antony White KC suggests that "must've been" referring to the Mail on Sunday.
Sir Simon insists there "certainly" wasn't a discussion of evidence that would've allowed him to bring a claim against the Mail on Sunday earlier than the October 2016 cut off date.
He is then shown a June 2016 text from Harris, which says: "We need to meet with [lawyer] Mark Thompson asap. You have new claims."
White suggests this meeting would have happened given the former MP's "interest in unlawful information gathering" - but Sir Simon denies it did.
"That isn't true," White suggests, again putting to Sir Simon he knew from the meeting in April there was potential claim against the Mail on Sunday.
Sir Simon insists he hadn't seen any of the evidence at the time.

Before lunch, Sir Simon Hughes continued to be questioned about messages and emails sent in 2016.
One email is from Hacked Off joint executive director Dr Evan Harris to a firm of solicitors on 7 April - two days after a meeting with Sir Simon - in which he says they had discussed whether he was "hacked" by other newspapers.
Antony White KC suggests that "must've been" referring to the Mail on Sunday.
Sir Simon insists there "certainly" wasn't a discussion of evidence that would've allowed him to bring a claim against the Mail on Sunday earlier than the October 2016 cut off date.
He is then shown a June 2016 text from Harris, which says: "We need to meet with [lawyer] Mark Thompson asap. You have new claims."
White suggests this meeting would have happened given the former MP's "interest in unlawful information gathering" - but Sir Simon denies it did.
"That isn't true," White suggests, again putting to Sir Simon he knew from the meeting in April there was potential claim against the Mail on Sunday.
Sir Simon insists he hadn't seen any of the evidence at the time.

Crossposted!

Yes it was the Sun who published first. However it was the lead up that was important, TBH very few people would have cared about Simon Hughes being gay as I think it was common knowledge. The problem was that he repeatedly denied it - even to friendly papers like the Guardian, Independent and I think the Telegraph. He used to tell this "sad" little story that he proposed to his girlfriends but nobody wanted to marry him 😥Then the Sun found out he was on a gay chat message board.

At the time SM was a huge rising star of the Lib Dems - everyone thought he would be leader over Nick Clegg but the revelations stalled his career - not so much his sexuality but the repeated lies.

Although technically I think a judge can at an earlier stage, a judge won’t just strike out a claim at trial!
Just because you think you can assess the strength of evidence (based on reporting rather than being there) doesn’t mean you’re right.

And no, the judge cannot use it as lesson for other claimants although you might find some comments in the written judgment. You’ll almost certainly know how credible or not the judge finds each witness in the written judgment.

None of the statements itemise facts! Just that it is awful, horrendous, stressful etc. personally I think SH rigid denial laughable when faced with the emails.
If his complaint is about being outed I have zero sympathy. Alan Duncan was openly gay as an MP for 25 years and in government, he never tried to deceive or lie about who he was to his constituency or the electorate. Don't lie to gain public office, people only care that you do a good job.
I'm guessing in civil case no such thing as perjury.

🤣 , I see what you mean about editing now @bluegreygreen, they posted the lunch comment, then the new update that begins..before lunch, now they have edited it ! Update first, no before lunch and lunch post is now after !!!
people will think I’m an idiot! 😁

They don’t get cross examined everyday. This isn’t the same as public speaking. At all.

Just before the break, Sir Simon Hughes told the court the first indication there was evidence that may implicate the Mail titles in unlawful information gathering came to him in 2019.
The court is shown a 3 March 2019 email, sent from Dr Evan Harris to Sir Simon, entitled "possible claim against Mail" sent after a meeting on 1 March.
In written evidence, Sir Simon says he considered the meeting "preliminary" and that he was "shown no documents" and "made no notes".
In court, Antony White KC suggests to Sir Simon it "simply isn't credible" no notes were made as he would've known the importance of any possible claim.
Sir Simon says he was only aware of a statement people had been doing research, but he wouldn't have considered a claim until the evidence shown to him was "conclusive".
White suggests he knew he had been identified as an "early wave claimant" in 2016.
Sir Simon insists it was only "considerably later" in 2022 that he saw the evidence he had a case.

Yes - I'm pretty sure there was a motion to strike the claim at an earlier hearing but the judge said he wanted to hear the evidence tested in court so hasn't ruled.

The problem for the claimants is the balance of probabilities - meaning that they need to show more evidence than not that they could not have discovered any of these issues before 2019-20 - which I think is looking iffy

I think it is interesting that many of the claimants have used the phrase "I was not shown any evidence" when questioned on why they didn't launch proceedings earlier. It seems like a phrase they have been coached to repeat - how likely that they would all use the same words rather than variations - "nobody showed me proof/paperwork/documents/a smoking gun" etc etc