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

In the 2000s when SF was pregnant methotrexate was sometimes given orally. It was a newish treatment at the time, so mode of administration could vary between areas. So it's entirely feasible she was given it orally. It was found to be slightly less effective when give orally, so was standardised to IM administration.

I suppose it depends between NHS trusts, but at my Trust surgery isn't that common for ectopics. My unit quote often pick up at least a couple per month and pass them through to EPAS for management.

I'm sorry again - I will be more careful in commenting on things outside my area of practice.

Sorry for derail, and I won't keep harping on about it.

But ectopic just means implantation outwith the uterus, it's usually in a fallopian tube but not always. You can get scar ectopics, where it has implanted in the uterus, but on the site of a section scar (have known of one where it was protruding through the scar into the pelvis). Scar ectopics carry a really high risk of uterine rupture. Treatment for those is similar but not exactly the same as other ectopic pregnancies.

Guess what I'm saying is that not all ectopics are the same, so depending on SFs specific diagnosis her treatment may well not have been "standard".

No worries, I wasn't really directing anything at you, just wanted to clarify things.

News today via the Independent:

Prince Harry’s friends ‘were not all tight lipped’, Mail on Sunday journalist tells court | The Independent

Exactly if Harry’s friends are anything like him they would have no problem dishing the dirt on those closest to him.
Good enough for the goose …

He will no doubt be outraged without seeing the irony.

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/UTIms

Has Sherborne presented any evidence that informer was obtained illegally? Have I missed something because so far it seems that the "evidence" is Harry's friends don't leak. Surely the balance of probability, seeing how leaky Harry himself is, is to assume they do leak.

Harry was 19 at the time, so I imagine there were similarly aged friends around.

We were all 19 once, and so the 'balance of probability' is that gossip was rife.

Especially when under the influence...

Telegraph:

Prince Harry invited me into his inner circle, says Mail on Sunday’s royal editor

How much longer is this trial supposed to run ?
Is Gavin Burrows testifying

Judge Nicklin has already said the trial is taking too long. It is due to finish before Easter, but they have not made as much progress as planned.

I read yesterday - can't remember where - that Burrows is proving tricky to get on stand, despite all parties willing. There seem to be issues with his security or internet connection. The judge is treating his testimony as hearsay at this time.

The Burrows difficulty is described in PrayformyBum's post at 9.28 am today.

The time comment comes from my post at 6.54 am.

The Judge made a very significant ruling today regarding Burrows. Burrows is giving evidence it seems. The Judge was very critical of the claimants. Hope this helps. The judgement is in the public domain. It is worth a read.

I found this so far.

High Court grants limited relief from sanctions to allow live evidence from private investigator Gavin Burrows, subject to strict constraints.

unfortunately there’s a paywall.

www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/baroness-lawrence-and-co-claimants-win-conditional-right-to-call-key-witness-in-anl-trial?category=none

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/various-claimants-v-associated-newspapers-limited-judgment-and-press-summary/

That seems to be the judgement handed down in November 2023, from one of the pre-trial hearings.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/556.html

Sorry try this link. I have Also copied the case and citation. Hearing was on the 11th.

Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 556 (KB)

Case No: KB-2022-003316
KB-2022-003317
KB-2022-003318
KB-2022-003340
KB-2022-003357
KB-2022-003404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

12 March 2026

B e f o r e :
Mr Justice Nicklin
__
Between:

(1) Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE
(2) Elizabeth Hurley
(3) Sir Elton John CH CBE
(4) David Furnish
(5) Sir Simon Hughes
(6) Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex
(7) Sadie Frost Law
Claimants

- and -

Associated Newspapers Limited
Defendant
__
David Sherbone, Ben Hamer, Luke Browne and Hector Penny (instructed by Sheridans Solicitors LLP and Thomson Heath Jenkins & Associates) for the Claimants
Antony White KC, Andrew Caldecott KC, Catrin Evans KC, Sarah Palin, Hannah Glover and Ben Gallop (instructed by Baker & McKenzie LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 11 March 2026

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/556.pdf

So that’s two implied criticisms by Judge Nicklin of Sherborne’s legal strategy in past couple of days: the comments made as part of his refusal of the 3rd party disclosure (re: MPS); and his comments in the ruling on Burrows giving evidence in a timetabled, limited and narrow way.

Sherborne's legal strategy reeks of desperation wanting to admit new evidence 2 months into a trial

Yes, Nicklin is on to him.

I do wonder how closely the individual claimants are following this. Are they fully on top of these developments and their ramifications, or are they reliant on occasional briefings from Sherborne?

Meanwhile, what are Grant and Harris up to?

Simon Hughes must surely be aware, having been a barrister himself, that the walls could come tumbling down.

Thank you @AgileRobin - that was very interesting.

In summary
-claimants are not permitted to include further hearsay evidence that had not been included in original evidence submissions
-claimants are allowed to call GB to give oral evidence under very specific and limited conditions
-defendant no longer has any restriction imposed on their cross-examination (40(5))
-claimants have been warned of the risk of abandoning the strategy of hearsay for oral evidence (41) - that they might end up with no evidence for some of their significant allegations.