Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
Puzzledandpissedoff · 17/03/2026 15:26

bluegreygreen · 17/03/2026 13:07

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).

Thanks once again for the clarification, bluegreygreen; it's all dragging on so much that it's good to be reminded of these things

I was just looking up why Sherborne isn't a QC and stumbled across the piece below from the Financial Times - presumably a reputable source, but it says "Sherborne ... whose hacking work is no win, no fee"

I've no idea if they've got it right or not, but it seemed a bit surprising in view of all the comments (including the judge's) about costs

https://www.ft.com/content/ca7d058f-a917-41d1-adaf-f4643bdafb1e?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Baital · 17/03/2026 15:36

Honestyboxy · 16/03/2026 19:43

Come on now. There is no excuse at all for a woman born and educated in SA not to understand why a Nazi uniform might be hugely problematic.

That's a very Euro-centric attitude. The second world war doesn't have the same cultural hold in SA.

It was thousands of miles away. There wasn't rationing or conscription. The people who formed the apartheid government post-war were pro-Nazi and anti-British. There was censorship. TV was only introduced in 1976, and there was only one channel. No endless black and white war films filling the Xmas TV schedules.

It just doesn't have the same resonance, especially when you then factor in the apartheid atrocities which are front and centre. Just as the apartheid regime doesn't have the same resonance in the UK.

Baital · 17/03/2026 15:45

Sorry, have now caught up with the thread - please ignore the derail...

noonames · 17/03/2026 15:46

Also I’m pretty sure she’s from Zimbabwe, not South Africa.

NormalAuntFanny · 17/03/2026 16:04

Puzzledandpissedoff · 17/03/2026 15:26

Thanks once again for the clarification, bluegreygreen; it's all dragging on so much that it's good to be reminded of these things

I was just looking up why Sherborne isn't a QC and stumbled across the piece below from the Financial Times - presumably a reputable source, but it says "Sherborne ... whose hacking work is no win, no fee"

I've no idea if they've got it right or not, but it seemed a bit surprising in view of all the comments (including the judge's) about costs

https://www.ft.com/content/ca7d058f-a917-41d1-adaf-f4643bdafb1e?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Ha ha, that sounds like those people who had a place at Oxford but chose to go to Huddersfield Poly because it was more real.

Apparently he is widely disliked at the bar and can never get silk for various reasons.

Certainly the bits of this trial we are seeing reported are not covering him in glory.

bluegreygreen · 17/03/2026 16:18

Thanks @Puzzledandpissedoff

Archive link https://archive.is/Wo6iZ

Interesting article. I'm surprised that the hacking cases are no win/no fee. I'm not surprised that he likes juries.

I think he likes being the story.

OP posts:
PrayForMyBum · 17/03/2026 17:47

PA coverage of today's proceedings:

SENIOR DAILY MAIL REPORTER DENIES PHONE HACKING IN HARRY CAMPFIRE STORY
about:blank Jess Glass
By Jess Glass, Press Association Law Editor
677 words
17 March 2026
15:33
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

The Daily Mail's chief reporter described an allegation that he used phone hacking in a story about the Duke of Sussex as "absolute bollocks" at the High Court.
Sam Greenhill, who joined the paper in 2003, gave evidence in the trial of claims of unlawful information gathering brought by a group of household names against about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday.
The publisher strongly denies the claims and is defending the case brought by Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and others.
On Tuesday, barrister David Sherborne, for the group of high-profile figures, asked Mr Greenhill about an article, headlined "How Harry fell in love", which is one of 14 stories at the centre of the duke's claim.
The story, which was published in December 2004 and written by now-royal editor Rebecca English, reported that Harry had shared details of his relationship with Chelsy Davy around a campfire in Botswana.
The court in London was told that the reporter was asked to follow up on a tip the Daily Mail newsdesk had received, and that he spoke to a man on the phone who had been at the same place as Harry in Botswana.
Mr Sherborne suggested that the call "did not take place at all" and later said that Mr Greenhill had used voicemail interception.
The journalist said this was "absolute bollocks".
In his written evidence, Mr Greenhill said the man who had given the tip did not know Harry, but "just happened to be in the same place and recognised about:blank Prince Harry".
He continued: "As far as I can remember, he said that a group of them had been sitting around the campfire, and one of the people in the group was about:blank Prince Harry.
"He said that about:blank Prince Harry was talking about this amazing girl he had met. As I recall, he did not give me the name of the girl."
Mr Greenhill also said he did not remember the exact words the man had said as it was over 20 years ago, but that the quotes in the article "are consistent with what I remember of the conversation".
Cross-examining the journalist, Mr Sherborne said: "You've worked back from the quotations in the article and said they are consistent with what you remember."
Mr Greenhill replied: "No, I did not know about the article until these proceedings."
The journalist later told the court that he would have done "due diligence" about the tip, adding: "I would have taken his name and would have done some checks to make sure he was who he said he was. I can't remember, but it was 22 years ago."
Mr Sherborne later suggested that Mr Greenhill's account about the "so-called" source was "completely false".
"What I told you was the truth," the journalist replied.
During her evidence, Ms English said she had been passed the story by Mr Greenhill, adding that she thought he had done so "because he knew that I was new to my job as a royal reporter and thought it might be helpful to me".
Giving evidence last month, the duke said that those at the campfire with him would not have shared the information with journalists.
He told the court there "would be a lot more out there" if people whom he described as some of his "closest friends" had decided to speak to the press.
Antony White KC, for ANL, suggested to Harry that comments from the duke about him talking about being in love with Ms Davy while at the campfire could only have become known to Mail journalists if someone had told them.
Harry said the information was more likely picked up when he "talked about it on a voicemail" or other communication.
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude on March 31, with a written judgment expected at a later date.
PA Media

CraftyGin · 17/03/2026 18:59

What is the point in all these journalists testifying, one after the other, for several weeks, giving exactly the same answers?

Is Sherborne just waiting for someone to slip up?

Lunde · 17/03/2026 19:19

CraftyGin · 17/03/2026 18:59

What is the point in all these journalists testifying, one after the other, for several weeks, giving exactly the same answers?

Is Sherborne just waiting for someone to slip up?

It seems to be all Sherborne has at the moment -

  • the journalist says "I got the tip from X"
  • Sherborne says "Oh no you didn't - It was UIG"
-journalist says "Oh yes I did you are talking bollocks"

... it's literally turned the High Court into Panto

ThePoshUns · 17/03/2026 19:34

It is a complete farce.

binkie163 · 17/03/2026 20:05

And no one knows what burrows is going to say 😂😂 if it's not what Sherborn wants he will say his own witness is a liar, one was a fantasist, honestly couldn't make it up.

GwendolineFairfax8 · 17/03/2026 20:23

I was interested in the registered office of Graham Johnson (Bylines). It is the family home and he transferred it to Emma Jones (his partner and a member of Hacked Off) for no monetary value a couple of years ago 🤔

All from Companies House/HM Land Registry

bluegreygreen · 17/03/2026 20:58

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

Telegraph report https://archive.is/EL1Xx

Again, no new evidence, just allegations from Sherborne.

Unless GB really does come up trumps for them (and even if he does, there is a credibility issue, with two conflicting statements), I don't think they've made their case.

Again, I know we're limited by not being in court and only having what's reported - but I think if there had been a point where there was a clear evidence trail (UIG -> DM journalist -> article) that would have been reported.
The fact that Sherborne spent so much time talking about other people and other articles suggests that he knows there isn't.

OP posts:
AgileRobin · 17/03/2026 21:27

Now why would Graham Johnson transfer the house to Emma Jones - interestingly it was over the period that Burrows took him to Court for another matter, and won. The details of that however, are sealed.

AgileRobin · 17/03/2026 21:36

binkie163 · 17/03/2026 20:05

And no one knows what burrows is going to say 😂😂 if it's not what Sherborn wants he will say his own witness is a liar, one was a fantasist, honestly couldn't make it up.

There is much more to this than meets the eye. Some do know what he will say and what the line of questioning will be. If one were to draw a chart of how closely linked the lawyers, Hacked Off, the funders and indeed some of the claimants are, it appears to be an orchestrated stitch up. Then you take into account other private investigators whom have been bribed, threatened, etc, it really is insane. Channel 4 touched on this for Dispatches last December. And Nicklin’s tone is definitely something that people are noticing.

stayathomegardener · 17/03/2026 21:54

Even with the patchy reporting if this was a play or theatre production I think it would seem too far fetched.

Carla786 · 18/03/2026 03:28

AgileRobin · 17/03/2026 21:36

There is much more to this than meets the eye. Some do know what he will say and what the line of questioning will be. If one were to draw a chart of how closely linked the lawyers, Hacked Off, the funders and indeed some of the claimants are, it appears to be an orchestrated stitch up. Then you take into account other private investigators whom have been bribed, threatened, etc, it really is insane. Channel 4 touched on this for Dispatches last December. And Nicklin’s tone is definitely something that people are noticing.

Channel 4 did a program? Might you have a link?

Carla786 · 18/03/2026 03:32

Baital · 17/03/2026 15:36

That's a very Euro-centric attitude. The second world war doesn't have the same cultural hold in SA.

It was thousands of miles away. There wasn't rationing or conscription. The people who formed the apartheid government post-war were pro-Nazi and anti-British. There was censorship. TV was only introduced in 1976, and there was only one channel. No endless black and white war films filling the Xmas TV schedules.

It just doesn't have the same resonance, especially when you then factor in the apartheid atrocities which are front and centre. Just as the apartheid regime doesn't have the same resonance in the UK.

I agree with OP about sticking to the case. Re this post though, the context of SA & the outlook they historically had on WW2 is very interesting but probably different for Zimbabwe (though there might be some similarities). Remember, she was from Zimbabwe not SA. (And went to secondary school in Britain).

Carla786 · 18/03/2026 03:32

stayathomegardener · 17/03/2026 21:54

Even with the patchy reporting if this was a play or theatre production I think it would seem too far fetched.

Yes...unfortunately Harry's aims of improving press accountability were good ones but they've gone wildly out of the window.

AgileRobin · 18/03/2026 05:49

Carla786 · 18/03/2026 03:28

Channel 4 did a program? Might you have a link?

www.channel4.com/programmes/the-prince-vs-the-paper-dispatches

GwendolineFairfax8 · 18/03/2026 08:47

I recommend that anyone interested in this case should take the time to watch it.

Look out for Evan Harris’ email where he says they will get around the statute of limitation by the claimants saying they discovered their case from Graham Johnson’s Bylines newspaper quotes (how convenient).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30533894

Graham Johnson, you will recall, was found guilty of phone hacking - but now has turned all good and helpful to the Hacked Off cronies (mainly Hugh Grant) to flush out this terrible crime - except this elaborate fraud is a crime, especially when Hugh Grant was recently paid a huge amount of money (his words) by the Sun newspaper to settle out of court.

Obviously this is highly defamatory. I wonder if HG will sue me 🤔

Sunday Mirror

Ex-Sunday Mirror reporter Graham Johnson gets suspended jail sentence

A former Sunday Mirror journalist who pleaded guilty to intercepting voicemail messages in 2001 has been sentenced to two months in jail, suspended for a year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30533894

GwendolineFairfax8 · 18/03/2026 09:00

Graham Johnson (journalist and author) would have us believe he was so sorry he didn’t realise listening in to someone’s private voicemail messages by correctly guessing their password was illegal. It was the victim’s fault for not changing voicemail factory settings or choosing a too easy password (said a former employee of Hugh Grant).

Graham Johnson was praised by the judge for coming forward. You couldn’t make it up.

In fact, he was clever enough to realise the game was up and work out how he could benefit from befriending the Hacked Off Team - which includes his own partner.

PrayForMyBum · 18/03/2026 09:00

Up today are two former Mail on Sunday journalists - former Defence editor Chris Leake, and former features writer Elizabeth (now Baroness*) Sanderson.

*because she went to work for Theresa May in No10 as a media advisor

GwendolineFairfax8 · 18/03/2026 09:01

Carla786 · 18/03/2026 03:32

Yes...unfortunately Harry's aims of improving press accountability were good ones but they've gone wildly out of the window.

You are kidding?!

bluegreygreen · 18/03/2026 09:06

Wasn't it the Dispatches programme where Jonathan Rees said they should 'think again' regarding DL's case depending on him having done work for the Daily Mail?
DL's case depends mostly on claims by Rees and GB.

In evidence last month we heard that Rees had never mentioned working for the DM to his police handler; that the Met Police discovered he had worked for other papers and not for the DM; and that Steve Wright had written about Rees in a DM series exposing corruption, making it extremely unlikely he had been working with him.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread