Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
OP posts:
NewAgeNewMe · 10/03/2026 20:04

I was on MTX for years for rheumatoid arthritis and it was drummed into me to be careful. I was unable due to APS to be on the pill. Until I was allowed to have coil i had to be very careful.

bluegreygreen · 10/03/2026 22:18

Thanks @CraftyGin.

Very similar to the Press Association summary (thanks @PrayForMyBum) but I suspect William may not appreciate the headline!

OP posts:
Baital · 10/03/2026 22:35

It's a rather twisted way of presenting it. But then, it is the Telegraph.

MrsLeonFarrell · 11/03/2026 07:16

That's a weird headline. The story in The Mail says he told a house party Catherine couldn't come because of morning sickness and the journalist was there in a personal capacity so didn't report it. It wasn't him telling a journalist directly.

PrayForMyBum · 11/03/2026 09:54

Up today is David Dillon, editor of the Mail on Sunday. Think he started at the end of yesterday.

AlwaysRightISwear · 11/03/2026 20:36

Any reporting today?

Lunde · 11/03/2026 23:55

It seems so difficult to get any information about this trial!

CraftyGin · 12/03/2026 07:01

It's to do with getting police records regarding an alleged illegal payment made to a corrupt police officer in the Baroness Lawrence case.

The judge has also said that the trial has already exceeded its time estimate.

MrsLeonFarrell · 12/03/2026 07:21

Interesting little phrase

"CPR 31.17 is not a mechanism for obtaining third-party disclosure simply to conduct collateral attacks on credibility.""

Isn't most of what we've heard collateral attacks rather than evidence of illegal activity?

kirinm · 12/03/2026 08:55

Can confirm that getting any order for disclosure whether it’s from a party to proceedings or a third party (not a party to proceedings) is difficult. The rules are stringent and the judge ultimately has discretion.

kirinm · 12/03/2026 09:08

Pre trial, the claimant could’ve got those documents (potentially) as the police consented. Public bodies often consent but insist on a court order -presumably for their records.

PrayForMyBum · 12/03/2026 09:14

PA reporting from yesterday:

EDITOR TELLS HIGH COURT SIGNING INVOICES DOES NOT MEAN HE COMMISSIONED WORK
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
740 words
11 March 2026
17:11
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

The editor of the Mail on Sunday has told the High Court that just because he signed off on invoices, it does not mean he was involved in commissioning third parties to help with stories.
David Dillon gave evidence for a second day in the trial of claims brought by a group of household names, including the Duke of Sussex, against the publisher of the title and the Daily Mail, about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims brought by the group which also includes Sir Elton John, Sadie Frost and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
On Wednesday, the journalist who has worked at the Sunday paper since 2001, told the court in London that in his role as news editor in 2007 and 2008 he was involved in signing off on payments.
Lawyers for the group of household names allege that he approved "many invoices for unlawful acts".
In his witness statement, Mr Dillon said: "Either weekly or fortnightly I was presented with a large stack of invoices to sign off, which would include contributor invoices, third party expenses and staff expenses.
"My signature on any given payment record doesn't mean that I was necessarily involved in the commissioning of third parties or approving the story itself.
"The reality was that I was juggling this task with a lot of other responsibilities and pressures on my time."
He added: "There was a careful balance to strike between supervising the reporters and scrutinising the payments they were making to third parties on the one hand, and on the other, allowing them to get on with their jobs and creating an environment where they felt trusted to do so."
In written submissions, David Sherborne, who is representing the household names which also include David Furnish, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, alleged that Mr Dillon "directly" instructed private investigator Steve Whittamore who engaged in unlawful acts, and Christine Hart, "a well known blagger".
Mr Dillon said in his witness statement: "I remember Christine Hart as a hybrid journalist and investigator.
"She would assist reporters in investigating stories. She had a reputation as someone with a very good network of contacts and sources.
"I cannot remember any specific instance of working with her or of asking her to get information."
He continued: "I remember instructing Steve Whittamore in the early days of my career at the Mail on Sunday.
"He was well known across Fleet Street as someone who could provide addresses and ex-directory telephone numbers.
"We also asked Mr Whittamore for vehicle registration checks.
"As far as I can recall, we may also have asked Mr Whittamore to find out if a person had a criminal conviction.
"I don't know how Mr Whittamore would have found that out."
Mr Dillon added: "It didn't occur to me that someone so well known and widely used by all newspapers would be operating using illegal methods."
When shown articles that Harry and Hurley have complained about, Mr Dillon said he either had a vague recollection and did not know how the details came together, or that he did not remember the article.
The court also heard from Andrew Buckwell, who was a freelance journalist for the Mail on Sunday after 2002.
It is alleged that he used private investigators.
Mr Sherborne said: "He operated as a freelancer and operated London Media Press with Rick Hewett, which was found to have carried out unlawful information gathering and/or VMI (voicemail interception) against the Duke of Sussex in Sussex v about:blank Mirror Group Newspapers."
Mr Buckwell was bylined with Katie Nicholl on an article that Harry has complained about.
The article, about an intimate relationship between Harry and Laura Gerard Leigh, allegedly contained "the fruits of unlawful information gathering which amounted to a serious invasion of the Duke of Sussex's privacy for which Associated is liable".
In his witness statement, Mr Buckland said: "I positively remember that my own known and trusted source called me up after Laura Gerard Leigh's picture had been published in a newspaper a day or two before, which I now know to be The Sun and told me that he recognised her."
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March with a written judgment expected at a later date.
PA Media

PrayForMyBum · 12/03/2026 09:28

I also spoke to someone who has spent a day in court observing the hearing and has watched the live feed.

They said:
*it was very obvious that Justice Nicklin was getting hugely frustrated with DS and the way he is presenting the 'evidence'. They added that a lawyer involved in the peripheries of the case said: 'That's just the half of it'. Suggests shenanigans going on behind the scenes - not sure what.

*yesterday, MoS editor DD was questioned at length about using Whittamore to 'flip number plates' [using the reg to get the name of the owner] - but that this related to stories which aren't a part of the claim and involved Ken Livingstone and others. Apparently he was questioned by police in 2011 over this - as were many other journos at all news brands. Police ultimately didn't take any action against him or anyone else as, although it is technically illegal, it was a widespread practice in UK media and journalists apparently had no idea it was illegal. So not sure how any of this helps DS's case.

*most intriguingly, there was a lengthy discussion in court yesterday about Gavin Burrows. The person I spoke to only caught some of it, but in essence it seems he wants to give evidence, both parties want him to give evidence, [which we knew before] but there is some kind of 'unprecedented' situation going on because he is currently in a location where he cannot be subpoenaed to testify.

Legal minds will know how important that is - I have no idea! Surely you just have to connect to him on zoom? - but it sounds like there's some kind of legal technicality which they're all trying to overcome. The judge is treating his first statement - the disputed one - as hearsay evidence. Ultimately, they seem no closer to actually getting him to appear before the court.

GwendolineFairfax8 · 12/03/2026 09:35

Thank you so much for your updates @PrayForMyBum

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 12/03/2026 09:39

MrsLeonFarrell · 11/03/2026 07:16

That's a weird headline. The story in The Mail says he told a house party Catherine couldn't come because of morning sickness and the journalist was there in a personal capacity so didn't report it. It wasn't him telling a journalist directly.

It is horrible, and I don't see why, when it is no PW bringing the case, that it should be reported on at all.

He told close friends first, the fact that a journalist was there and didn't report, shows that they were people he could trust.

PrayForMyBum · 12/03/2026 09:48

Another interesting fact - Katie Nicholl is testifying again today. Not sure why her evidence has been broken up - unless, of course, she is being brought back to respond to something that has come up in the interim?

And you're welcome @GwendolineFairfax8 . It's so hard to get the info if the mainstream media don't pick up the PA copy.

PrayForMyBum · 12/03/2026 10:11

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 12/03/2026 09:39

It is horrible, and I don't see why, when it is no PW bringing the case, that it should be reported on at all.

He told close friends first, the fact that a journalist was there and didn't report, shows that they were people he could trust.

I think that anecdote did a couple of things quite successfully for ANL - it proved that the Royals (albeit not Harry specifically) would tell groups of people, not all of whom were close to them, about very private matters and therefore in theory that such things could emerge via rumour, and not hacking.

Secondly, it's ultimately a self-serving story for Charlotte Griffiths that aims to paint her in a good light - 'I'm no monster, I have morals, and I have very, very good contacts in my social circle'. It's perhaps enough to cast doubt on the idea that stories she was involved in 'must' have come from UIG.

MrsFinkelstein · 12/03/2026 10:20

bluegreygreen · 10/03/2026 10:52

Archive link https://archive.is/hhmxp

No, that wouldn't be usual treatment @CraftyGin

The point about an ectopic pregnancy is that it is outside the uterus. That is what makes it dangerous - it can erode into blood vessels.
It is removed surgically, rather than by treating with medication to prevent implantation, as a pill does for a uterine pregnancy.

Am just catching up, so someone may have already answered this, but medication is absolutely suitable to use for an ectopic pregnancy and is actually the preferred method.

Surgery is only used if absolutely necessary.

Methotrexate is the medication used and is about 95% effective, it stops cell growth in the pregnancy. It's used in early pregnancy and is standard treatment nationally. Surgery is used if the pregnancy is a bit further on, if rupture has already happened - because the surgery causes more tubal damage in and of itself. Methotrexate leaves the tube intact, reducing the risk of another ectopic in the future.

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 12/03/2026 10:55

PrayForMyBum · 12/03/2026 10:11

I think that anecdote did a couple of things quite successfully for ANL - it proved that the Royals (albeit not Harry specifically) would tell groups of people, not all of whom were close to them, about very private matters and therefore in theory that such things could emerge via rumour, and not hacking.

Secondly, it's ultimately a self-serving story for Charlotte Griffiths that aims to paint her in a good light - 'I'm no monster, I have morals, and I have very, very good contacts in my social circle'. It's perhaps enough to cast doubt on the idea that stories she was involved in 'must' have come from UIG.

I can understand why ANL used it, but for the Telegraph to publish such a misleading heading is wrong imo

Lunde · 12/03/2026 11:40

Thanks for these links

bluegreygreen · 12/03/2026 12:52

Thanks all for the updates

OP posts:
bluegreygreen · 12/03/2026 12:54

Apologies @MrsFinkelstein - I was inaccurate in that statement, though the question was if 'a pill' would be used for treatment.

A methotrexate injection can be used, though surgery is often still needed. I linked the NHS treatment overview later in the thread.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread