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

Another lurker, thank you for keeping updated x

'He who comes to equity must come with clean hands'

If claimants cook up evidence to move timelines and create a case, wasting obscene amounts of money and court time, they deserve to have the book thrown at them. I await with eager anticipation, the judge's summary. Judges summaries are always full of fabulous turns of phrase. Off the proceedings so far, I'm expecting the judgement to be EPIC.
Wondering if David Sherbourne got rocky and flew too close to the sun this time.

Cocky. Bloody autocorrect!

Isn't the whole Byline adventure fraud? That email is very damning.

I don't understand - the claimants were aware of this email, and aware that the defendants had a copy?

Come on, we have to know what it was!

Yes, this is puzzling.

Simon Hughes has a degree in law from Cambridge and was a practising barrister before he became a full-time politician in 1983 (the infamous Bermondsey by-election against Peter Tatchell). He became Minister for Justice & Civil Liberties in the coalition government.

So Hughes can hardly go for the ‘I’m too thick to have understood what the evidence was at the time that others were poring over it in front of me’ demeanour - although he does do a nice line in ‘I wasn’t comfortable about [insert thing] at the time and sadly I got found out to be a hypocrite, so I’m quite sorry’.

Anyway on the Limitation question, I suppose they were all waiting for Elton $$ John to agree to put his hand in his pocket before proceeding?

Thanks @TheAutumnCrow, SH really should know better then.

OMG he's a barrister?

I’m very conflicted about this case - on the one hand we know the tabloids (and many broadsheets) are happy to blur the lines on what’s ethical to get a scoop.

I was a very young local reporter on a regional murder story who was amazed at the nationals swooping in when the story got juicy with big rolls of £50 notes to get information from locals, and national photographers who had no shame climbing over backyard fences and trespass on other people’s property to try to take photos of the inside of the suspect’s house.

So I want there to be a way to hold those in the media who have no ethics about these dodgy practices to be held to account and punished.

But in this particular case the claimants don’t seem to have any evidence that the journalists couldn’t have got all the information from leaky friends, relatives, staff, random employees or strangers on booze and drug fueled nights out, and even just semi official press releases repeated by multiple outlets.

I also think Bylines is very murky itself so doesn’t help with an attempt to actually hold the press accountable.

Regarding the political connections with Hacked Off, there’s another link between Hugh Grant et al and Sir Simon Hughes, Evan Harris and the Liberal Democrats.

The former Joint Executive Director of Hacked Off in 2015, alongside Evan Harris, was Daisy Cooper MP, who was in post until she was successfully elected to parliament as the Lib Dem MP for St Alban’s in December 2019. By 2020 she was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party. (She’s certainly popular and likeable.)

Daisy Cooper was politically active in Liberal Democrat senior circles as a ‘rising star’ at the same time as joining Hacked Off as an employee in 2013.

The interests of the Lib Dems and Hacked Off in the area of press regulation do seem to align, and the Lib Dem MPs are certainly happy to bring pressure to bear on Starmer - having foolishly believed during the Tory/Lib Dem coalition that Cameron wouldn’t water down and ditch Leveson 1 & 2.

Small world.

https://hackinginquiry.org/dr-evan-harris-and-daisy-cooper-appointed-joint-executive-directors-of-hacked-off/

IIRC Hugh Grant campaigned for the Lib Dems in 2019 although I think he was involved in a spat after only a couple of days on the campaign trail.

Are they, like the unfortunate Gavin Burrows, also in hiding?

This is what I can't work out. Which makes me question whether this is as bad, legally, as it looks to a non-legal observer.

But then the judge told SH he doesn't have to answer if he might perjury himself, which doesn't seem a 'normal' warning to a witness?

At beginning of the thread the amount of evidence documents quoted I think was just under 500 that is drowning in paperwork. Sherborne had no idea which points would be picked up on or cross examined, he may not have done due diligence on the bundle himself, he rolled the dice. He is up against a very experienced KC with a team of staff to go through every word. They know exactly what contradicts the information they hold.
The fact white is focussing on time limitation doesn't make ANL look entirely innocent but it does seem the claimants have colluded and produced very little evidence, just opinions that of course ANL are liars and cheats. Shocked SH is a barrister.

Agree. I have no love for the Daily Mail, but so far I'm not seeing definitive evidence of UIG.

Nosing around places and paying people for gossip is seedy but not illegal.

And I remember the Sadie Frost stories - they were everywhere at the time, and loads of titbits from "friends". The Nanny sold her story, and then when Law got involved with Sienna Miller there were tons of gossip and stories with a very pro-Sadie Frost spin. Many direct quotes from friends of hers.

I though the same, Recollections and Baital, although, I may remember incorrectly, but wasn't the judge's warning to SH do with him possibly incriminating himself, rather than him possibly committing perjury?

I may be confused...

I think you will find that times have changed. The News of the World was shut down after its phone hacking. The cost of litigation is not worth a story about, for example, what Sadie Frost and Jude Law said in a telephone conversation - which most of us wouldn’t even care about.

I'm here. Confused as to why they brought the case without evidence. Which leads me to believe there must be something that hasn't come out yet.

Agree, but wouldn't you show that evidence when crossing examining? What would the benefit of saving it up be? They don't have to wow a jury.

Does the Judge get all the evidence? Or just the evidence used in court?

They have ‘witnesses’ but I am guessing these witnesses never thought this case would go to trial and they would be cross examined under oath.

These witnesses were paid large amounts for their ‘life stories’ and signed documents saying all kinds. We will have to wait and see how this proceeds

If I recall correctly ANL have 460 pages of material and the claimants about 150 pages - there will be evidence to come. The case is scheduled for 9 weeks, so there must be!

It isn't the job of these witnesses to present the evidence - their job is to confirm their statements and answer questions on them. The lawyers have to present the evidence in the way that works best for their case.

Is anything going on today? Can't find any updates from Sky.

I couldn't find anything either, @Lunde.

I have an appointment at lunchtime that I need to prepare for, so if anything starts later this morning I may miss it.