Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3

[bluegreygreen]

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

Press Association report from yesterday's proceedings (looks like it wasn't picked up by any news outlets, though):

REPORTER DENIES ASKING INVESTIGATOR TO MAKE 'CORRUPT PAYMENTS' FOR EPSTEIN DATA
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
831 words
4 March 2026
17:13
Press Association Regional Newswire - London
PARNLO
English
© 2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

A former Mail on Sunday reporter has denied instructing a private investigator to make corrupt payments to a police officer for records relating to Jeffrey Epstein.
Sharon Churcher, who was the paper's chief American correspondent from 1992 to 2013, was giving evidence in the High Court trial of claims of unlawful information gathering brought against about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which publishes the title and the Daily Mail.
The publisher strongly denies the claims and is defending the case, brought by the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and four others.
On Wednesday, Ms Churcher gave evidence via video link from New York.
Lawyers for the group allege her use of US-based private investigator Dan Portley-Hanks was "habitual".
Ms Churcher told the court in London that her reporting on Epstein attracted a lot of interest in her sources.
In her witness statement, she added: "I understand it is said that I instructed Mr Hanks to make 'corrupt payments' at the end of 2010 to a police officer in Florida via an intermediary named Mark Fisten in order to obtain three documents relating to my reporting about Jeffrey Epstein."
She added: "I gave no such instruction and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents at issue were not obtained from a serving police officer for 'a corrupt payment'."
The freelance journalist added: "I have done a great deal of reporting on Jeffrey Epstein over the years.
"In 2007, one year before he pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor, I reported that he was subject to law enforcement investigations.
"In 2011, I broke the story that Virginia Giuffre, nee Roberts, had identified herself as civil plaintiff 'Jane Doe 102' in a lawsuit she filed against Epstein and that she had accused Epstein of trafficking her to Prince Andrew."
Ms Churcher also said: "To the best of my memory, I asked Mr Fisten for documents or information relating to Epstein's sexual abuse of minors.
"I did not ask him to make any payments to anyone on behalf of the Mail on Sunday and, in particular, I did not ask him to make a 'corrupt payment'.
"To the best of my knowledge, he obtained exhibits that had been filed on the public docket as part of civil litigation involving Epstein, which included flight logs, the address book and other materials, and he provided me with copies of those publicly available records."
Ms Churcher also said that she recalled Mr Hanks being used as an intermediary to pay Mr Fisten, and while she did not remember why this was, it may have been to maintain his confidentiality.
Questioning Ms Churcher, David Sherborne, representing the group of household names, said: "I suggest to you that Mr Fisten was providing you with the address book but it was not publicly available and that is why you paid him through this concealed route."
Ms Churcher replied: "No, that was not why I paid him through that route."
The court heard that Ms Churcher is bylined on one of the articles relating to Sir Elton, which includes details of his and David Furnish's baby, including his living arrangements and his care information relating to the couple's surrogacy arrangements.
Mr Sherborne said in written submissions: "Sir Elton and Mr Furnish have given clear evidence of the deeply private nature of the relevant information in the article, the steps they took to see to protect that information, and the fact that any telephone calls with close friends relating to Zachary's birth were private and with Sir Elton's and Mr Furnish's trusted inner circle."
Mr Churcher said in her witness statement: "In this case, I had two confidential sources who had provided tips to me in the past on Sir Elton.
"They were referred to in the article as a single 'source' to maintain their confidentiality.
In written submissions, Mr Sherborne said Ms Churcher was a "frequent" user of private investigators who "engaged in unlawful acts".
Referring to Mr Portley-Hanks, he continued: "Mr Portley-Hanks sets out in detail in his witness evidence the unlawful information gathering he undertook on behalf of Associated.
"These included unlawfully obtaining social security numbers, unlisted numbers, police records, toll records and licence plate data.
"Mr Portley-Hanks's evidence is that he believes the Mail knew what he was doing was illegal."
In written submissions, Antony White KC, for ANL, said: "Mr Hanks was a foreign-registered private investigator regulated by the laws applicable in the jurisdictions where he worked and not covered by the April 2007 ban on the use of search agents.
"He gave assurances to Associated that he abided by all applicable law in work carried out for it."
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March, with a judgment in writing due at a later date.

Today the court will hear from Richard Price (assume another DM journalist, although the name doesn't ring a bell), according to the PA schedule.

Interestingly, I was talking to someone who is going to be giving evidence and they were told last week to expect that their slot would only be confirmed the day before. So it seems there is a lot of movement. Whether that's potentially Burrows-linked I'm not sure.

I wish Sherborne would stop bleating on about trusted inner circles. If you tell even one person, the risk is there that information is no longer confidential (and Sherborne knows it).

Thanks @PrayForMyBum.

I see Sherborne is still pulling other cases in, despite the request from the judge not to do so.

Good to have the update about the movement - thanks.

What has information on Epstein got to do with this case?

I'm assuming the intent was to use those other articles to show that Sharon Churcher has a history of unlawful information gathering, but (a) Judge Nicklin previously told him not to do that, and (b) her defence is that the information was publicly available, so not UIG.

I wonder if the judge is allowing this line of questioning to proceed in case anything else does come out, to ensure that everything has been thoroughly investigated in court.

Bringing up the sourcing for reporting on Epstein is a bit of a curve ball, didn’t expect to hear his name in relation to this case.

I think DS is continuing to attempt to turn this case into a public enquiry on press culture of 20 years ago, rather than focusing on the specific UIG by ANL in recent years.

The irony is that we only have the scale of info on Epstein because of dogged press investigation.

Agree @CraftyGin - the sort of reporting that the claimants in this case wish to curtail.

Can anyone explain the ‘sources’ in documents protected for confidentiality?

I understand this keeps names out of the public domain but surely the Judge, DS and indeed the witnesses in question would need to know.

So if for example ANL asserted that they were given certain information by Joe Bloggs regarding Elton John, would Elton himself not have to clarify that connection?
And was there not a confidentiality agreement between the press and their source?

I am thinking of scenarios whereby a trusted member of an inner circle is now exposed.

The reporters' privilege is to protect witnesses, encourage whistleblowers and basically protect the free press in our democracy.

It can only be over-ridden in exceptional circumstances, such as national security.

It’s tricky because it would get the sources in trouble with the friends or employer or whatever they sold out to the Daily Mail on the promise that their name would never come out.

Thanks @CraftyGin

An example is Jude Laws statement has not been challenged or called to testify. ANL accepted it in written submissions, I suspect it doesnt give any evidence to back up SF allegations because if it did DS would want him on the stand telling the world better still becoming a claimant. JL believed SF was the source of the stories and he had reason to believe that.
Sources who sell stories for cash need anonymity to be able to keep the money coming in. However most Journalists collect info from several sources to see if it adds up, they are not going to just print about Eltons surrogate, the birth, birth certificate, nursing set up etc from a tip off without corroborating info which the agency provided, some public domain and his publicist. They are also in the habit of calling the person to comment on the story, most reasonably intelligent people would remember who they blabbed to at the time.
i.e I have a new rescue dog. He had an altercation with the neighbours donkeys (they beat the shit out of him) My neighbour knew, I told my husband, cried to a friend because he was injured and obviously had to take him to the vet. Had a sensational front page story appeared I would know it was one of 4 people or a friend/colleague of theirs. Its not rocket science.

i.e I have a new rescue dog. He had an altercation with the neighbours donkeys (they beat the shit out of him) My neighbour knew, I told my husband, cried to a friend because he was injured and obviously had to take him to the vet. Had a sensational front page story appeared I would know it was one of 4 people or a friend/colleague of theirs. Its not rocket science.

Surely it could be various people in the vet's surgery, including other patients or someone who had walked past/looked out of a window while the altercation was happening? When things are happening you don't necessarily notice the passer by, and even if you notice them, you don't always pick up how much they saw.

I know about a relative's behaviour in hospital because of people chatting at the school gate, from the timing and a mention of a spelling of a name (as in comment about how the name, never mentioned, was spelt) combined with what I knew from the relative means I am totally certain that he was very close to being escorted from the premises, rather than the nurses standing up and clapping him in support, which is his story.

And I am three removes socially from one of the claimants in the ANL case and know gossipy details about their family. I am nowhere on their radar.

Me too - I don't even live in the UK but some gossip reached me

From a staff member who was present, who told their mother, who told my brother ... who told me!!

@Rhaidimiddim @Lunde are you sure you haven't committed UIG?

Has anyone seen any reporting from today?

I've mentioned before here that I was once told about a personal nickname William and Catherine called George, by the wife of someone who worked for them who I knew very casually. If you say things in front of other people, particularly things you want to keep private but they judge to be harmless, some of them will tell someone else and the gossip chain starts.

I find it staggering that the main evidence for illegal information gathering seems to be "my friends don't leak".

Here's the PA reporting from yesterday (sorry for the delay, I have to be at a computer to pull this stuff). No mention of Richard Price, who was on the schedule for yesterday, but Caroline Graham (US editor, based in LA) was giving evidence.

CHELSY DAVY WAS NOT IDENTIFIED THROUGH 'NEFARIOUS' MEANS, HIGH COURT HEARS
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
816 words
5 March 2026
15:11
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

The name of the Duke of Sussex's "first true love" came from local sources in Argentina and was not obtained through "nefarious" means, the High Court has heard.
Harry is one of several household names bringing a case against about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail, alleging unlawful information gathering.
The publisher strongly denies the claims and is defending the case, which is also brought by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes.
On Thursday, the Mail on Sunday's US editor, Caroline Graham, gave evidence at the court in London about an article titled, "Harry besotted with Chelsy, his 'first true love'", relating to the identification of Chelsy Davy.
The article was published on November 28 2004.
Harry's lawyers suggest the story was based on "information unlawfully obtained from about:blank British Airways", and say ANL's explanations as to how they obtained the information is "nonsensical".
In her witness statement, Ms Graham said she did not commission private investigator Dan Hanks, or any other private investigator, to obtain or provide any of the information for the story.
She added that she got all the information herself or from people she was working with in Argentina, South Africa and the UK, including a stringer called Heather Briley whom she had worked with before.
Ms Graham told the court that she also worked with a friend who was a polo player and had connections with the aristocracy.
The court heard that Harry was visiting Buenos Aires to work at a polo lodge as part of his gap year, and that through her contacts Ms Graham found out the location of the lodge.
She said: "As it turned out (my source) and, I believe, our local freelancer contacts, knew the ranch manager, named in the article as Ernesto Fernandez Llorente, and other staff at the place where about:blank Prince Harry was staying.
"They were able to confirm with Ernesto that about:blank Prince Harry was there."
She added: "We did not tap any landlines, or place trackers on vehicles, or hack voicemails, or deceive anyone to get information."
The court heard that through her sources Ms Graham discovered that Harry had barely left his cottage and was "actually holed up with a girl".
Ms Graham said that she then set about identifying who this girl was, and sources at the ranch provided the name "Chelsea Davies", but she could not find any information on anyone by this name, so she continued investigating and asking for the correct name.
She added that she had also been told that Harry and Ms Davy were due to fly out together.
The court was shown an email from Ms Briley to Ms Graham dated November 26, in which she said: "Have spoken to contact at about:blank British Airways here half an hour ago and offered $$ in return for name. He's gone off to investigate."
David Sherborne, representing the group of household names, said to Ms Graham: "Ms Briley was clearly telling you that she was going to pay a about:blank British Airways employee to provide her with the surname."
Ms Graham replied: "She told me in an earlier email that she has a friend who worked at about:blank British Airways, and 'would you like me to ask?'.
"I said absolutely - I was asking everyone.
"She said, 'Can I offer some money?', I said, 'of course'."
Mr Sherborne continued: "I suggest to you it was absolutely clear to you that Ms Briley was telling you she was paying the about:blank British Airways employee to get the actual name so you could use it to reveal the identity."
Ms Graham said: "My Lord, that is not the case."
In her witness statement, Ms Graham explained: "We ultimately didn't get Chelsy's name from Heather's contact at about:blank British Airways.
"As I remember, it was the local freelancers who had contacts at the ranch who were able to clarify the spelling of Chelsy's name and confirm her South African nationality.
"I thought this information came from a flight manifest listing the guests going on the hunting trip, which the confidential source at the ranch saw a copy of.
"The spelling of Chelsy's name and her nationality was passed on to us verbally - we never saw, or asked for, any of the underlying documents."
When Mr Sherborne suggested the information had come from Ms Briley's contact at about:blank British Airways, Ms Graham replied: "We did not do anything nefarious to get Chelsy Davy's name, and if you're implying that somebody at about:blank British Airways did something, that is not the case."
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March, with a judgment in writing due at a later date.
PA Media

Must say, re the email about '$$' to a British Airways employee, that's the first time I haven't believed the journalist's explanation. Seems fairly clear cut to me that the freelancer was referring to paying for info?

I also don't understand why that would be denied. It isn't illegal as they're not public sector, although it is unethical. It isn't even blagging if you're saying, "I'm a journalist, I'll give you some cash if you can get this name".

Why not say, yes, airline employees would do this all the time?

....and, sorry for spamming! The court isn't sitting today. Not sure if Caroline Graham finished her evidence or not (I wouldn't have thought so) but expect her to continue on Monday.

Yes I’d agree, it’s not illegal to ask for info or offer money for information. It would be a breach of data protection for that organisation to give it. The fault lies with the information giver not the requesting person surely?
and as we have been surmising staff at the ranch were talking and information being leaked by them rather than phone tapping etc;

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

I agree, it’s not illegal so why not agree! , unless as she stated, there was no need as they got the information from sources at the location , so no need to go ahead paying for it ?
also Sherborne has a cheek as his investigators have been paying left , right and centre for information! , if it’s illegal for ANL , then surely it is for him!