Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3

987 replies

bluegreygreen · 19/02/2026 13:46

This is the third thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) are bringing against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).

Thread 1

Thread 2

Since the celebrities have given evidence, there has been limited direct reporting from court; what there is has mostly been on this link
Sky News link to court case

OP posts:
Thread gallery
51
GwendolineFairfax8 · 03/03/2026 15:53

It would be good if lots of people attended court in case my journalist who is travelling in is held up or called away to something more urgent. Many names will be aired, not only Sherborne/Grant/Harris - but others who have tried to stifle free speech for their own personal gain and to conceal blackmail, theft, deception and child molestation as well as gun crime and prostitution. I can say what I want in court as long as it is the truth (which it is).

GwendolineFairfax8 · 03/03/2026 16:14

I am not saying that Prince Harry was involved with prostitution - but the company he keeps is questionable here. I know all about Moran and his “10 floors of whores”. My ‘gagger’ refused to contact the police despite witnessing firsthand the abuse of women - and threw someone who tried to speak out under the bus as a result.

Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3
RecoIIectionsMayVary · 03/03/2026 17:47

Thedom · 03/03/2026 11:33

the camp fire one, where he told three friends he was in love with Chelsey was unlikely to be staff nor phone hacking. But the one where they went to a resort, the media were told by staff who were getting the place ready, same when she accompanied him to Argentina.

Edited

The camp fire could be staff. Excellent staff are invisible. I doubt they lit or maintained the campfire, and someone would be providing drinks/food, and someone security. Lots of possibilities.

stayathomegardener · 03/03/2026 17:59

Given just the drugged or drunken states Harry has got himself into that have been recorded it’s highly likely he was regularly inebriated and therefore has zero idea what he said to whom. He’s just not a credible witness and must surely be giving DS sleepless nights.

PrayForMyBum · 03/03/2026 18:06

PA report from today's proceedings:

EX-DAILY MAIL SHOWBUSINESS EDITOR USED SOURCES CLOSE TO CELEBRITIES, COURT TOLD
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
801 words
3 March 2026
15:53
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

A former Daily Mail showbusiness editor used sources close to celebrities or information already available when writing articles about Liz Hurley and Sir Elton John, the High Court has heard.
Nicole Lampert was giving evidence in the trial of claims of unlawful information gathering brought by a group of household names against about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
The publisher strongly denies the claims and is defending the case, which is also brought by the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes.
The court in London heard that Ms Lampert worked at the Daily Mail from 2003 to 2006, and approved invoices for private investigations firm Express Locate International (ELI) as she was in charge of the finances for the department.
She is bylined in two articles complained of by Hurley, one titled "Now I wish I'd stayed with Hugh admits a lonely Liz".
In her witness statement, the journalist said she does not recall using ELI for the story.
She also said that she worked with a freelance reporter in the United States who would inform her of potential stories of interest from magazines published there.
Ms Lampert added: "I also had a confidential source, who was not a journalist, who gave me information on Ms Hurley at this time.
"They were able to provide reliable information on Ms Hurley because they moved in the same socialite circles and went to the same parties as Ms Hurley and her close circle of friends."
Sir Elton and his husband Mr Furnish have complained about an article Ms Lampert wrote in December 2005 about the costs around their wedding.
Ms Lampert said: "I think the fact that the couple were entering into a civil partnership, that it was taking place in Windsor and that the local council and police were making plans to manage expected crowds would have come from other reporting."
She added: "It may be that the £10,000 figure was a 'guesstimate' of likely cost given the number of police officers involved.
"I can also see from the article that I spoke to Sir Elton John's spokesperson to get his reaction on paying for the police costs."
Ms Lampert also said she "would not have used anyone", including the private investigators she is alleged to have paid, to help her with the story, "because of what was in the public domain - this was a well-known couple with a publicist who could be approached for a comment and it was known where the wedding was taking place".
The court heard that Frost has complained about four articles published between 2003 and 2005 on which Ms Lampert is bylined.
In her witness statement, Ms Lampert said that the information in one of the articles was either already old news or "almost certainly came from a freelance contact" called Sharon Feinstein.
She added: "Sharon had a very strong source in Sadie Frost Law's social circle or family and was able to get excellent information from that source, so I would usually speak to her about Sadie Frost articles.
"This was always the same source, and I knew who her source was, and knew that they were able to provide reliable information."
One of the articles in the case relates to Frost's divorce from Jude Law.
Ms Lampert also told the court that although she used ELI while working at the Daily Mail, she thought journalists could properly use the service at the time.
She continued: "I did sometimes ask them to find out information that I suppose, looking back, could have involved them blagging or them not properly identifying themselves when making inquiries - such as phoning up hotels in order to find out where someone was if it was a celebrity staying in the UK.
"However, I never asked them to find out financial or medical information, or hack phones, and wouldn't have imagined that they would have done that, or even been able to do that."
In written submissions, David Sherborne, who is representing the group bringing the claim, said the article relating to the about:blank Frost Law divorce "contains the fruits" of unlawful information gathering.
He said Ms Lampert was "another regular commissioner" of ELI and the services of Trace Direct International (TDI) and BDI UK Consultancy.
In relation to the articles complained of by Hurley, he added that Ms Lampert was a "habitual user of private investigators" who engaged in unlawful acts, and had a "propensity" for using ELI.
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March, with a written judgment expected at a later date.
PA Media

ThePoshUns · 03/03/2026 19:33

Thanks @PrayForMyBum, very interesting. Much as we have been saying it would have been pretty easy to access information on these stories using direct sources and sources in their circles. And using PIs isn’t unlawful. I guess it will come down to who the judge finds most credible.

bluegreygreen · 03/03/2026 20:09

Thanks again @PrayForMyBum.

No direct evidence of UIG yet, and clear explanation of sources.

OP posts:
Rhaidimiddim · 03/03/2026 21:25

GwendolineFairfax8 · 03/03/2026 13:29

Thank you!

Very deep pockets but one of the gaggers is now at risk of a £multi million bill for breach of contract. Apologies for being cryptic but I am preparing for my time to speak out 😊

Off- topic, but please (if you legally can) give us the heads-up when it kicks off🤞

May, isn't it?

Lunde · 03/03/2026 22:15

Thanks for all of the articles and updates - very interesting reading.

bluegreygreen · 03/03/2026 22:44

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/I8Nqf

Sherborne quote of the day 'A true human source would not have got it wrong'

Interesting argument: the SF/JL story was wrong, so must have been obtained illegally; but the EJ/DF story was exactly correct, so must have been obtained illegally ...

OP posts:
GwendolineFairfax8 · 04/03/2026 08:01

Rhaidimiddim · 03/03/2026 21:25

Off- topic, but please (if you legally can) give us the heads-up when it kicks off🤞

May, isn't it?

Yes it starts on May 11th. I can say in court who I am connected to which should create a lot of interest - and it will be obvious here how I know what I know.

From posters’ valued comments and really helpful court reports, I think it is clear the majority of us are on the same page - ie there was no phone hacking/illegal information gathering by the Daily Mail. We know there had been in the past by the News of the World etc but the DM (which I have no connection to) would not risk its reputation and the cost of expensive lawsuits for a few titbits of gossip.

I mean - who actually cares if Elizabeth Hurley said she wished she had stayed with Hugh Grant as life would have been easier?! I remember a lot of people were saying it at the time as they were seen as ‘the perfect couple’. I suspect she ultimately could not forgive his ‘dalliance’ or be sure it would not happen again.

MrsLeonFarrell · 04/03/2026 08:42

bluegreygreen · 03/03/2026 22:44

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/I8Nqf

Sherborne quote of the day 'A true human source would not have got it wrong'

Interesting argument: the SF/JL story was wrong, so must have been obtained illegally; but the EJ/DF story was exactly correct, so must have been obtained illegally ...

Has Sherborne never been involved in gossip? Human sources get it wrong All. The. Time

PrayForMyBum · 04/03/2026 09:15

Today's witnesses are two more ANL journalists - Richard Simpson, who was showbiz editor after Nicole Lampert (who gave evidence yesterday) and Sharon Churcher, the MoS' US correspondent.

bluegreygreen · 04/03/2026 09:46

Thanks again @PrayForMyBum

OP posts:
elessar · 04/03/2026 10:00

bluegreygreen · 03/03/2026 22:44

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/I8Nqf

Sherborne quote of the day 'A true human source would not have got it wrong'

Interesting argument: the SF/JL story was wrong, so must have been obtained illegally; but the EJ/DF story was exactly correct, so must have been obtained illegally ...

Maybe it’s playing out different in court but from what’s being reported this just seems like such clutching at straws.

accusing her of deliberately making something up to hide that it was phone hacking? That doesn’t even make sense.

There is of course a possibility or even a likelihood that some illegal methods were used, if not by the journalists themselves, by some of the agencies they employed to source information. But it just doesn’t seem possible to demonstrate that these methods were the ones used in the stories complained of - the evidence is so flimsy.

TheAutumnCrow · 04/03/2026 10:32

It’s all a very murky world, isn’t it? People selling tittle tattle on their celeb friends, relatives, employers, acquaintances. And lots of people wanting to read about it. But sadly, I think that’s exactly how human nature often works - evolution gave us language and alongside it, the social need to gossip (according to anthropologists).

I can see how the claimants would prefer to believe otherwise, however, for psychological and financial reasons.

I don’t envy the judge.

Baital · 04/03/2026 11:33

It wouldn't necessarily need to be their friends 'selling', it could be friends gossiping / showing off, so it reaches the people selling.

Justdancevance · 04/03/2026 12:38

Sometimes people offer up stories to prevent negative stories about them or generate separate positive stories about themselves.

These stories are currency and are traded as such.

That’s how Rebecca Vardy operated which DS is very familiar with

binkie163 · 04/03/2026 13:05

TheAutumnCrow · 04/03/2026 10:32

It’s all a very murky world, isn’t it? People selling tittle tattle on their celeb friends, relatives, employers, acquaintances. And lots of people wanting to read about it. But sadly, I think that’s exactly how human nature often works - evolution gave us language and alongside it, the social need to gossip (according to anthropologists).

I can see how the claimants would prefer to believe otherwise, however, for psychological and financial reasons.

I don’t envy the judge.

It is also a world of ambition, trade offs and using people to advance your career. The casting couch isnt the only route, if you are beautiful you can marry/date higher profile people until you surpass and dump them. Horse trading is nothing new but it causes a lot of bitterness and resentment for those sliding down the greasy pole! Jealousy is a good motivator for flogging gossip, especially the salacious stuff.

The 1990's were a particularly hedonistic time and no one was being quiet about it!
Amy Winehouse was a classic example of being sold out by her nearest & dearest. Her dad and husband cashed in on her. The dad also loved the attention and acted like he was a celebrity.

PrayForMyBum · 04/03/2026 13:57

Quite a fun write-through in Private Eye today - will upload pics if I can….

Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3
Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3
bluegreygreen · 04/03/2026 14:42

Thanks @PrayForMyBum.

I had been thinking that the reporting is very much covering Sherborne's cross-examining of witnesses, and very little from White. These are ANL's witnesses, I suppose, and I expect there will be more reporting of AW's questioning when we reach Gavin Burrows.

OP posts:
binkie163 · 04/03/2026 14:51

Its has also been mentioned in more than one report that stuff had been covered in written submissions, grappling with my brain fairly sure it was to do with witness source. So RE saying in court it had come from friend, the impression is the source is named in the submission so keeping the identity out the public domain. So ANL have probably covered their witness stuff in writing, certainly saves wasting court time.

bluegreygreen · 04/03/2026 21:32

Has anyone seen any reporting today?

OP posts:
Lunde · 05/03/2026 01:18

bluegreygreen · 04/03/2026 21:32

Has anyone seen any reporting today?

No I've checked the usuals - DM, Telegraph, PG etc but couldn't find anything

Was there court today? Or has Gavin Burrows done a another runner?