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

I would hope the legal teams are updating their clients daily - and especially with a development like this.

The criticism feels more overt than implied in that judgement, @TheAutumnCrow

Bloody hell it is a shit show. I thought DS wanted burrows as hearsay only but to accept the disputed statement from years back to stand as fact even though 3 years ago burrows said it was fraudulent.
Some of the claims rely totally on the fraudulent statement, so they are buggered.
I will be expecting a Harry style statement from DS at the end of it being an establishment stitch up against him along with the forces of evil......rather than him taking the blame for piss poor planning.

I thought DS wanted burrows as hearsay only but to accept the disputed statement from years back to stand as fact even though 3 years ago burrows said it was fraudulent.

They did, but then decided they wanted to be able to question him as well.

The judgement is Nicklin explaining to them in detail why they can't decide one thing but then have the advantages of the other.

That's quite an extraordinary judgement. Nicklin accusing DS of lying to the court about suddenly 'discovering' audio recordings of Burrows' interviews, accusing DS of changing strategy mid-trial when it became apparent it wasn't working, and now the ONLY evidence that either DS or Associated can rely on re Burrows is what Burrows actually says in court. Nothing else. That means that anything DS hasn't already brought up from Burrows' (disputed) statement is no longer admissible, as Antony White pointed out.

Thought this was a very telling (if rather obvious) statement:

"As noted already, very serious allegations have been pursued against the Defendant and several of its witnesses. Once Mr Burrows has given evidence, if the Claimants no longer have admissible evidence to support those allegations they – and their legal representatives – would have to consider whether they can continue to be maintained."

I wonder whether that means that some of the claims might be withdrawn as a result of Burrows' evidence?

He'll give evidence for a maximum of six hours - so that'll be a fun day, which will hopefully be covered by Sky/BBC etc. You'd think.

Meant to add - PA's schedule has three journalists giving evidence today.
Heather Briley, an Argentina-based journo who I think worked with Caroline Graham on some of the Harry/Chelsy stories; DM feature writer Barbara Davies; and former MoS journalist Sanchez Manning.

It all makes fascinating reading! Thank you everyone who's posting these updates and for all the insightful and respectful comments that follow - such a relief to follow this after the nasty dross on t'other RF threads 💐

Looking back over the questioning, Heather Briley was mentioned in court by DS on 20th January regarding alleged payments (indirectly) to someone at British Airways to get Chelsy's seat number.

Even if they got the seat number they didn't book a seat near her or even on the plane iirc so it wasn't info used (again)

Once Mr Burrows has given evidence, if the Claimants no longer have admissible evidence to support those allegations they – and their legal representatives – would have to consider whether they can continue to be maintained."

So would those claims be thrown out and just the remaining ones go ahead?
Where does that leave them with the 'after the event' insurance?
As no evidence of uig has yet been shown are they relying totally on burrows original statement.

Thanks for the link to the hearing, @AgileRobin

"The Claimants will be permitted to call Mr Burrows only for the purpose of giving oral evidence confined to (a) the subject-matter of the hearsay statements identified in their existing Civil Evidence Act notice; and (b) relevant issues in the litigation. They are not permitted to rely upon, introduce, or seek to adduce any further statements, documents, or alleged accounts said to emanate from Mr Burrows or to pursue/explore issues that are not relevant to the issues that remain live in the litigation"

On the part above, what I want to know is how they're going to stop Sherborne doing exactly that. Time and again Nicklin has requested that the issues around thism case be stuck to, and still Sherborne introduces irrelevancies - so what's going to change now?

I think the judge can issue a judicial criticism, award costs for that part of the case, or even sanction or fine the legal team.

As there is no jury, the judge himself can just choose to ignore these allegations.

He has mentioned time pressure and these distractions do not help.

I looked at that paragraph, @Puzzledandpissedoff, and thought as you did - 'but that's what Sherborne's been doing all along!'.

I think, though, that putting these restrictions formally in writing will help, as he can then simply stop the questioning if it seems to veer off course, without being opening himself to any accusation of bias against the claimants.
The last sentence of paragraph 40(1) also suggests to me that Nicklin may want to define a list of questions permitted to be asked before GB gives his evidence.

That all makes perfect sense, @bluegreygreen, but is "putting it formally" really likely to stop Sherborne?

I'm no expert in these matters, but surely he must already know what's allowable or not, and to this layperson it honestly looks as if he's turning this into a circus

I was thinking that too, @bluegreygreen - surely the fact that sanctions would normally be applicable in this case, but they've been waived because the judge felt justice could only be served fairly if this approach was taken, that might stop DS from taking the piss? And presumably you don't want to annoy the judge too much.... Is that wishful thinking, though?

Thanks to all for the interesting and informative posts and links to date 💐

I don't know @Puzzledandpissedoff and @PrayForMyBum - it was the only way it made sense to me.

I have no expertise in this, so happy to hear from anyone who has!

At this stage of the case, I’m wondering whether the clients have any agency left? Are any of them actually instructing their very expensive legal teams (solicitors >> barristers) or is this now the Sherborne Show?

This could be DS last hurrah as the media have cleaned house, his line of work is virtually obsolete. I think he hoped this case would bring in more clients and open more avenues for him to go after (leveson 2) He is a one trick pony.
If it comes out that DS was happy to knowingly have burrows fabricate a sworn statement, along with the obvious fuckery of byline times and hacked off, his career is damaged. I doubt he wants to practice boring law that doesn't involve famous faces and headlines in the very newspapers he wants to destroy, which is ironic seeing as he is such a media whore himself.

Was there any reporting of yesterday's evidence?

I have just seen this

https://archive.is/TzTXB

LOL - you couldn't make this up

In his evidence to a privacy case he has brought against The Mail On Sunday (MoS) and the Daily Mail at the High Court in London he [Harry] said he was ‘convinced’ she must have used unlawful information-gathering to discover where he stayed on a visit to Malawi.
He told an aide she kept appearing at secret locations, and was ‘a total nightmare’.
Ms Jones, a war correspondent and former MoS Africa correspondent, said it was ‘a fantasy’ to suggest she had bribed park rangers or ‘blagged’ details by trickery.
On one occasion, she said she walked into a bar in a Malawi national park, asked if anyone had seen Harry, and in minutes was told where he was likely to be staying.

As ever, no evidence of unlawful information gathering.

Haha so easy

😂😂😂😂 not to mention the palace published schedule/itinerary so the public and press know where to be. Not difficult to follow someone from an official meeting.

Express report of Barbara Jones' evidence

https://archive.is/5rJBv

Oh, so it was Chelsy who encouraged him to buy the Nazi uniform, not William and Catherine 🤔🤣