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

Yes, spot on

Thank you, this is fascinating.

He was going to get sacked, so I have heard so this is all just part of the tactic - how he is doing wonderful for helping claimants etc. What about bribing and embellishing (allegedly).

He received a suspended sentence and tried to get that overturned a couple of years ago but the Judge refused. This whole thing is extremely concerning.

I wonder if the aftermath will expose Hugh Grant - with all his Tom Ripley traits - he’s on record, as one of his funny little anecdotes listing out all the leading actresses who he’s worked with who hate him.

He’s got the trial he wanted - with zero risk financially or reputationally to him - in fact huge net benefit to him on both points with a significant payout and no raking up of his personal life.

I’m not sure that Hugh Grant’s reputation and finances will stay intact. The Sun can ask for its money back (and some) - and it will be a spectacular embarrassment for him. In an interview, he said this cause was the thing in his life he was most proud of.

Also, I have a good idea who is behind the insurance (conspiracy and all that).

Who / what are you thinking? Any clues?

What about the role of various senior Liberal Democrats? Not just Evan Harris and Simon Hughes, but also Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem Party Deputy Leader) who was also a director and co-CEO of Hacked Off. Any thoughts? Or is it just a big old coincidence?

Btw, this article I was reading in the early hours of this morning suggests that things haven’t been great between Harry and Elton since the French villa/private jet holiday in late 2019, and especially since the publication of Spare.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/17/elton-mentor-to-harry-and-brooklyn-is-he-being-played/

excerpt:

‘[Elton] hasn’t spoken much about them [H&M] post-Megxit, which took place in 2020. One reason for a cooling-off could be that towards the end of their French break, Harry was horrified when he discovered that Elton planned to serialise his memoir, Me, in the Daily Mail, a tabloid which he said had “made his life miserable.

‘The Duke wrote about the incident in his own book, Spare, which was published in 2023 and gave an excoriating account of the Royal family. According to royal biographer Tom Bower, Elton signally failed to invite the couple to his Oscar night party that year and they have not attended it since.

‘Could the two events be connected? I couldn’t possibly say. As it happens, a high-profile privacy trial against the publisher of the Daily Mail over allegations of phone tapping and illegal bugging is drawing to a conclusion, with Harry and Elton as claimants. Suffice to say that these two, who once swore their enduring fraternal love for one another, have not been photographed together, nor have there been any reports of them carousing at The Seven Stars pub opposite the Royal Courts of Justice.’

It has been suggested that Elton himself bugged the private jet! Oh the irony …

And thus heard H in full flow, possibly about his view of the Mail. Hmm.

More on David Furnish:

Elton John's husband did speak freely with journalists, trial hears | Daily Mail Online

Cannot say until I am 100% certain

Meghan and Harry are very difficult to work with and David was working with them on Pearl before it was dropped. Elton loves to give advice and gets humpy when ignored and the Sussex’s refuse to listen to advise.

I’m not surprised David talks to the media

You'll all be shocked to hear that now Sherborne is bringing up checks notes Leslie Ash....who 'cannot understand' how the press knew about the price of her trout pout. Can't imagine it would have been too hard to ring up a plastic surgeon and ask how much something costs.....

EX-MAIL ON SUNDAY REPORTER SAYS IT 'NEVER' HACKED PHONES AS FAR AS SHE IS AWARE
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
426 words
18 March 2026
14:31
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

A former Mail on Sunday journalist has told the High Court that, as far as she is aware, the newspaper "never did any phone hacking".
Baroness Elizabeth Sanderson, who was also a special adviser to former prime minister Theresa May, worked at the title from 1997 to 2014.
On Wednesday she gave evidence in the trial of claims brought by a group of household names, including the Duke of Sussex, against the publisher of the paper and the Daily Mail, about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), over alleged unlawful information gathering.
The publisher strongly denies the claims and is defending the case brought by Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and others.
Lawyers for the group allege that Ms Sanderson commissioned Jonathan Stafford, a "talented voice actor" and private investigator who "primarily carried out blagging".
In written submissions for the trial, David Sherborne, who represents the group of household names, said the "irresistible inferences" from the evidence are that Lady Sanderson "commissioned Jonathan Stafford to carry out unlawful information gathering to obtain phone billing data unlawfully".
In her witness statement, Lady Sanderson said: "I remember Jonathan Stafford as someone who helped get telephone numbers or addresses for people that The Mail on Sunday wanted to interview.
"I never asked him to pretend to be somebody in order to get information and don't remember him providing any information to me other than names and addresses.
"I would not have asked him to get medical or financial information and wasn't aware that this was something he did."
The court in London heard that Lady Sanderson wrote an article in January 2003 about Leslie Ash titled Curse of the Trout Pout - Leslie Ash is the latest star to fall victim to the craze for lip Implants.
Mr Sherborne said the story contained information about the price of Ms Ash's lip treatment, which the actress cannot understand how the press could have obtained.
In her statement, Lady Sanderson said: "I don't remember commissioning Jonathan Stafford to help me on this story. I would not have asked him to help me find Leslie Ash's doctor or confirm with that doctor what she had done."
She added that "so far as I am aware The Mail on Sunday never did any phone hacking".
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude on March 31, with a written judgment expected at a later date.
PA Media

They really are clutching at straws, especially as LA isn’t even a claimant. Why is the judge letting this rubbish continue?

The lip procedure info is bonkers - it would take any half decent journalist about 15-20 minutes to work out who the most likely favourite plastic surgeon for celebs was and then phone and get quotes for a specific procedure price point.

What has Leslie ash got to do with this case?
unless I’ve been asleep she isn’t one of the claimants , the judge really needs to bring Sherborne to heel.

Thanks @CraftyGin
Archive link to Ulla Kloster evidence in DM https://archive.is/IMmzX

Thanks @PrayForMyBum
As I said above - if Sherborne had a clear evidential trail from the DM to the articles under dispute, why would he be dragging in other articles that don't concern his clients?

And, as others have said, it's not hard to find out how much plastic surgeons charge for procedures. Many even have their charges on their websites.

God knows, jeff

It reads to me like just flinging anything at the case in the hope something will stick, but I honestly don't know why the judge hasn't shut it down, or even how he could

Requesting that relevant points be kept to is all very well but not much use if it's ignored, and whether Nicklin could interrupt and actually command that a subject be terminated I simply don't know

I get the impression that a lot of the time the stories about celebs and royals contain a fair bit of guess work,’ it’s believed’ ‘it’s thought to be’ ‘Prince Harry will be…’

Every now and then they guess correctly and bingo! How could the DM possibly know that - must be hacking.

I think at least some of the additional allegations have been along the lines of 'Look, you were using unlawful methods in that article so must have been doing so in this one' - at least, I assume that's what the logic is.

However, they haven't managed to show a clear link even in those cases, and Nicklin told Sherborne clearly that he had to prove that there was UIG involved in the case of his clients, not in other cases.

I don't know why the judge is still allowing the same line of argument; perhaps to show that there was no bias in court?

I’m with you puzzled , why this case has been allowed to go ahead and rack up so much money with, what appears to be no evidence at all is a mystery! , I’m no lawyer, I did study briefly ( only got as far as the law of torts!) but I can’t understand why this colossal waste of time and money is allowed to clog up our already struggling court system!

If Harry were a celeb, but not a prince, would it be allowed to go on..?

I’ve always assumed that “according to sources” meant I’ve just made this up, “friends of” meant their local newsagents mum.

That is the millions of pounds question!

It is good it is allowed to carry on. The court will have added its costs and the main (enormous) costs are met by the parties involved.

If the Judge stopped it before the end, the claimants would be bleating they had not had a fair hearing.

This is a matter of huge public interest. We have the people who claim to be working for victims of criminal activity, actually working to recruit them for their own agenda.

Hugh Grant was accused by one of his employees of dropping the Dowler family after shmoozing them with lavish entertainment and attendance to premieres etc (in order to persuade Gemma Dowler to do interviews) - when they ceased to be of use to him. Wow that is really defamatory (were it not true).

Most commonly @StillSpartacus my understanding is that “sources/friends say” is actually not “friends” at all - but either direct from the person’s PR or from a rival PR who is planting stories to make their own clients look better….

The original source might be the newsagent/hairdresser/friend of the person in question’s mum, but no journalist could base a story on that. Too unreliable. You’d always go back to the appropriate PR and source quotes that way.