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

Definitely Harry seems to have lacked IQ, common sense, and most importantly, empathy, for most of his adult life.

Ah right, that makes sense. I thought it might be to do with concerns Harry would be unfaithful/refuse to settle down.

Not quite - they were on and off until 2011.

I agree mainly.

More generally though: if A (female) encourages B (male) to do something negative, it's not sexist or unfair to criticise A for encouraging. What IS sexist & unfair is acting like B had no choice but to do what A suggested

When he was criticised did he initially blame anyone? I thought the blaming of William & Kate came later when he wrote Spare. Sad if took responsibility back then but then backtracked in his mid-30s...!

It would be good, if people don't mind, to get back to the main subject of the thread. We've managed quite well up to now in the threads to concentrate mostly on the court case, and discuss Harry (and others) where they relate to the case and the evidence provided (or not).

I think that is what has kept the threads reasonably harmonious so far, and avoided the partisan nature of some other threads.

I've been trying to find any news from the case today, but haven't seen anything reported. @PrayForMyBum may have a Press Association update when she's next online.

Interestingly, while I was hunting for any updates I saw that a judgement handed down today in a case against Mirror Group Newspapers for phone hacking.

This was a preliminary judgement to decide if 5 cases could go ahead or were out of time. It was ruled that 4 of the 5 claimants were out of time, but one could proceed to trial.

MGN isn't denying the hacking.

https://archive.is/Y9zGM

Judgement

There isn’t one

@bluegreygreen, agree. There are plenty of other threads on H , it would be nice to keep this one on track please.

Totally agree and thank you for the reminder - plenty of other threads for these derailments.

Back in the 1980s AMW had a brief fling with an older woman Vicky Hodge ( a model also referred to as a gangster’s moll!!) . She sold her story to the NoTW about their exploits on a Caribbean beach.

The promise of discretion, ie no kiss and tells in the press, was probably one of the attractions of Epstein.
Obviously it backfired on the long run

Sorry folks, I'm not at a computer on a Monday so can't access the schedule.

I also can't find coverage from yesterday so it may be that no words were filed.

Up today are DM journalists David Jones and Sam Greenhill.

And totally agree with @bluegreygreen that we should try to stick to the court case.

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

As a point of interest, have just checked the draft schedule - which obviously bears no resemblance to what is actually happening any more - and the evidence was supposed to conclude last Friday. This week was pencilled in for closing submissions....!

By my calculation, they need at least another week to hear from further witnesses, and that doesn't include Gavin Burrows. So they are running way over time.

Precisely, Lunde

The blaming someone else was to be expected - it's the RF's go-to with just about anything - but you have to wonder about his own common sense

Same applies to the constant court cases, with only the Mirror one providing a win so far. He could of course accept that other narratives than his exist, but the very idea appears to be off limits and so he continues to make an utter fool of himself

By my calculation, they need at least another week to hear from further witnesses, and that doesn't include Gavin Burrows. So they are running way over time

Edited to add that'll doubtless please Sherborne who's billing for every minute, @PrayForMyBum, but I have to wonder just how much the final bill will be

Thanks @PrayForMyBum - and please don't apologise! We appreciate all your input 😊

I'm not surprised they've over-run, but a bit surprised it's to that extent.

I meant to say - during my hunt for an update last night I discovered that the Telegraph had changed its headline about William telling Charlotte Griffiths that Catherine was pregnant
https://archive.is/AkeI0

I have heard from a good source that potentially Monday could be one of the most explosive days in Court - Burrows evidence. Allegedly he is giving evidence on the 23 March.

Any over run is not down to ANL White KC whizzed through the questioning of the claimants, he said most was covered in submissions. I think he did just enough to show the claimants wanted to believe it was uig as apposed to providing actual evidence of uig. Harry, SF, LH, DL were all done within 2 hours not days. The questioning of the ANL journalists was laboured, strayed beyond its remit, was repetitive and based on a disputed statement, wasting a lot of time. I dont understand why Burrows was not up first to decide if there even was a case if his testimony didnt stand up.
The winner is without a doubt sherborn racking up those hours at £1k an hour. Judge has complained at the costs, so even if they win they have slim chance of being awarded well over the limit deemed suitable.

So, if Harry loses his portion of the case, how much is he likely to be liable for in terms of legal fees? And how is he going to pay them?
(same applies to other claimants, of course, particularly Doreen Lawrence although I recall someone saying on here that the others might cover those???)

There was talk of 43 or 34 million I don't remember which!

These days big costs do tend to be pared down by the court especially if there's been time wasting - as Sherborne isn't a KC for example his notional hourly rate may be deemed to be say 500 rather than the 1000 it might actually be.

Both sides have large teams so every hour of billable time will be thousands and the refreshers for court days equally steep.

So the bill will be massive and insurance won't cover it all.

If they lose the claimants will be liable for it all, how that might be split I don't think anyone knows as yet

My understanding is that the costs for the claimants are separated into group and individual costs.

As they are separate cases, though heard together, it is possible for one or more of the claimants to win while others lose. This would mean that those who lose were liable for a greater share of the group costs.

This is, of course, without considering the possibility of the judge awarding costs against them if they lose (so having to pay ANL's costs as well).

I hadn't thought of the group v individual costs, good point and will complicate things.

There's no question though that they'll get costs if they lose, they brought the case that's just how it is.