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

The court hears that in Sir Simon's original claim against Associated Newspapers Limited, he said:
In around July 2020 I was contacted by Graham Johnson at Byline Investigates who told me I had been targeted by hacking by the Mail on Sunday.
Sir Simon says he was "duty bound" to amend his pleading when he realised he had actually received an email on this subject sent in 2019.
Antony White KC suggests that although Sir Simon was "adamant" he wouldn't support concealing knowledge of the time limitation argument, he did "exactly that" by referring to learning something in 2020 he knew of in 2019.
Sir Simon says new material came to light in 2022, changing "the nature of the evidence" and satisfying him he had a potential claim - not the July 2020 Byline article.
White says: "Your original plea about when you were first made aware about unlawful information gathering by ANL, fixed to the publication of the Byline article then, was the adoption by you of the argument you said you wouldn't countenance."
"No sir," Sir Simon replies.

Now I'm totally confused ...

hmmm - this is a huge problem for the claimants with the shifting timeline

Also shows a level of conspiring between the plaintiffs to get the Byline article recognised as the date they "discovered" they were victims

Ironic that they have been doing exactly what they are in court complaining about.

Me too! 🤔🤷‍♀️

I think SH's original statement was that he knew nothing until the Byline article 2020 but then they realised the 2019 e-mails were damaging so he submitted a revised claim statement backdated to 2019.

But so did sherborne, both sides have all info in discovery. The judge also has all the documents. None of this is a surprise to sherborne and yet he still thought go for it. I will be expecting another harry interview saying no one explained he may not win or the consequences.

I do remember some RF long time posters holding up the Byline Times as a brave organisation happy to speak the truth, turns out they’re a grubby bunch of crooks.

😆

And that’s completely about board! 🙄 , I don’t know what we will hear from Elton or DL but if it’s the same then this case is a complete joke and waste of taxpayers money.

I think Elton will be back on tour this year if he’s bankrolling this shit show.

I don’t think that once the ball is rolling that he could back out !
and SH , SF and LH seemed surprised that they were questioned and that these emails were mentioned!
did Sherborne know ? Why did he not prepare the witnesses?

This looks very murky now - the phrase ‘cooking the books’ springs to mind.

I’m also side eyeing Sherborne and questioning his motives 🤑🤑🤑

But still saying he didn't really know anything until 2022?

Yes , I remember the glee when they went after Dan Wooten too! , that went well didn’t it.

This January 5th article from the Press Gazette delves into the rather murky tactics and overlapping roles of the Byline Times which is used as the claimants' "discovery" date and Byline Investigates and Hacked Off who are acting as researchers for the claimants

It's almost like they are manufacturing their own evidence that they then report on as "journalists"

archive.is/fL5VU

Me too.

So SH knew that the defence had a copy of this email?

That’s shocking! , how is that any different from what these witnesses are complaining about!

David Sherborne, representing Sir Simon Hughes and the other claimants in the case, is back on his feet to ask his client some final questions.
He asks Sir Simon if he ever discussed the six-year limitation period to bring a case - the main crux of the questions today - with Dr Evan Harris or anyone else at the time. The former MP says he didn't.
Sir Simon also says from 2011 onwards, he thought the now-defunct News of the World were responsible for all of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's unlawful activities and believed Associated Newspapers' denials of involvement in such activity at the Leveson inquiry.
While he had some details in 2019, his case against ANL crystallised in 2022, he tells the court.
Sir Simon says ANL's firm denial of any involvement in unlawful information gathering is "unappealing" and "frustrating".
Sherborne then asks how he feels about being accused of being involved in some "dishonest conspiracy" and "lying on oath" by ANL's lawyer.
It's "completely untrue and I resent it", he says.
He says he's lived his life "abiding by the law in every respect", apart from one or two speeding offences.

End of proceedings

It's the "I wasn't shown the evidence until 2022" that we have heard from LH, SF (not sure about Harry as he just talked about his feelings, Chelsy and Meghan)

We can see from the e-mail yesterday and today that they tried to recruit Kate Moss, Heather Mills and probably more - but they had more sense

Well he would say that wouldn’t he! 🙄 , even the judge thought he was incriminating himself! , I’m sorry I think Sherborne is a shyster , it’s no wonder he’s not a kc .

• The claim of former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Sir Simon Hughes relates to alleged unlawful information gathering by the Mail on Sunday in 2006 after he was "outed" as being gay by The Sun that year. It does not relate to any published article by the MoS.
• In his written witness statement, Sir Simon said "it is distressing to realise" that Mail on Sunday publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) "targeted me as well as others using unlawful means and the use of private investigators for the purposes of their own profit". He said: "The fact that they have remained completely unapologetic for this illegal behaviour is also distressing."
• The entirety of ANL's lawyer's questioning focused on the issue of time limitation - whether Sir Simon waited too long before bringing a case.
• Sir Simon was questioned about emails and text messages ANL's lawyer suggested showed he was aware of a potential claim in 2016.
• He was also asked about a specific July 2019 email from Hacked Off figure and fellow former Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris, referring to deterring the Mail publisher from arguing limitation by relying on stories written in a Byline Investigates publication.
• Sir Simon admitted the suggestion was "improper" but said it was "completely untrue" and that he "resented" being accused of being involved in some "dishonest conspiracy" and "lying on oath". He says he was aware of a possible claim from 2019 but this did not crystallise until 2022.

Do we know who ( if anyone) is testifying tomorrow? , no mention on the link yet.

How SH 'feels' about being accused has absolutely nothing to do with anything, it is purely a case of his statement and ANL evidence refuting it (I feel a Megan..no one asked how I feel is due from ANL) SH forgot to do the tears, did he miss the poor, distraught, tearful act prep day or did he realise that it would be a waste of time as his arse must be burning.

It’s a horrible case - but I have lots of evidence. This case is helping a lot as it is intrinsically linked.

Nearer the time, I will be making it more public and hope lots of people will attend. I am in regular contact with a Daily Mail journalist (who is a bit gobsmacked) and they will be present at the hearing.

I have no previous connection to the Daily Mail and was introduced by a friend who is involved with me in an environmental cause.

What I can say is this - the Daily Mail is very very conscious of how it sources its information.

I already know that this claim against them should fail - but criminal charges should be brought against Hugh Grant, Evan Harris and David Sherborne (yes, let them sue me).

I hadn't realised before that summary that SH's case doesn't even relate to any published articles by the Mail - it's all to do with him having been told by Hacked Off/Bylines about unlawful information gathering by the Mail. The article mentioned is from the Sun.