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

Today, PA's schedule says "the witness referred to as Berlin" will give evidence..... So someone is giving anonymous evidence? How on earth does that work? Presume the court knows who they are, but they just won't be publicly identified?

And I wonder whether they're a witness for the claimants, or for the defence. Very odd.

I found this - "Berlin" is a witness for the claimants who can apparently back Burrows' early (disputed) statement:

https://www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-harry-appeal-anonymity-decision-daily-mail-case

See I don’t get this at all! , if a witness says that their earlier statement was false and they didn’t in fact sign it , how on earth can it be used ???
whoever this “Berlin” is what possible evidence can he provide that will prove otherwise?
Burrows evidence should have been removed the moment he withdrew it.

I suppose the claimants could argue he was paid off by the Daily Mail Group?

Why the anonymous Berlin. Surely every complainant would be at risk (of murder by the Daily Mail hitmen or whatever).

I think it would be risky for them to claim that ! Especially in light of burrow’s claims and that of their other witnesses of being paid for their evidence by their own side.
it’s obvious that they are clinging to Burrows original statement because without it they practically have no case !
The only thing I find puzzling is the judge allowing it to go forward.🤷‍♀️

Yes, the allegation was always that ANL had paid GB to change his evidence, especially as he contacted them in 2023 and made a statement for them. Hence his statement for the current court proceedings (his 'second' statement) was made with independent lawyers.

Berlin's evidence could be interesting (at least more interesting than Sherborne dragging in unrelated articles, hopefully).
GB was also said to fear for his life, hence why his location was not to be disclosed. I may be wrong, but the impression I got was not that he was afraid of ANL.

When we discussed hearsay evidence on a previous thread, one of the points mentioned was that the judge could decide for himself how much weight to give it - and in GB's case that might not be very much, given his second statement withdrawing the first.

Now that GB is giving evidence in person, he will presumably have to face questioning on both statements, as both are court documents. We know from the judge's earlier ruling that ANL is no longer limited in its cross-examination, but that Sherborne will have very strict limits.

I’m sure I read that Burrows said he was threatened by one of Sherbornes information gatherers?! , was it Johnson? 🤔

Maybe the judge is allowing irrelevancies in to show it is a 'fair' trial, and then in his judgement make clear what he thought was/ wasn't relevant and why. Dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's against an appeal?

The statement was written by Johnson from notes he made interviewing Burrows, it wasnt done in front of solicitor or witness and signed electronically again not witnessed by solicitor. I am struggling to see how it even stands as a statement. I think Burrows would say anything for money from either side but then it was sherbornes responsibility to ensure his witness was still onside. Burrows retracted 2023 I think both he and White KC would know if there had been someone else present who could shout liar liar pants on fire.

I have written several statements for court (coroner's and high court). They have never needed to be witnessed.

They have needed to be in a particular format and signed, and I have had to attend court to confirm my evidence.

Having said that, I did write every word myself.

Berlin is not anonymous any longer, as per the latest article from the Upsetter which names him and which gives a great deal of context. DS did threaten to have the failed anonymity order heard at the Court of Appeal and made a big deal about it, but that never happened. The Judge refused the anonymity order as it went nowhere near the threshold of granting such orders.

Burrows was not paid by ANL to provide a witness statement. My extremely good source says that he approached them as he never worked for ANL and was extremely surprised to find an article about him and the claimants bringing a court case, and naming him. He was very disturbed apparently.

Would anyone here ( or anywhere else) even know who this “ Berlin” is in real life?

Berlin evidence 🤣

https://youtube.com/shorts/m1Eqojxslic?is=dFZ1CNNXN8IB5LeF

Most people probably would not know who Berlin is, but the identity has been revealed by the Upsetter. The timing of this witness was highly suspicious. Unfortunately the Upsetter is a subscribed publication but I was sure it was reported elsewhere. I can check.

Fascinating @AgileRobin

You can see the first part of the UpsetterStrikes substack without having to pay the subscription. Doesn’t disclose the name there, but I think that’s unimportant after you read the intro. I really can’t wait for the postmortem and disclosures when this case is finally wrapped up.

Very interesting - thanks @AgileRobin

I must admit there have been so many twists and turns regarding GB and his evidence that I'd got confused. I'd thought there were 2 witnesses seeking anonymity and one was allowed (Berlin) and the other wasn't.

The evidence and witnesses on the claimants side of this case are all so seedy and dodgy!

its on X now,

And this is what ‘Barbatus’ refers to, I guess trying to prove illegal access is where they are going with this.

PC Jerry Young
was the corrupt police officer at the center of Operation Barbatus, a 2004 anti-corruption investigation by the Metropolitan Police into a network of crooked officers and private detective

Key details about the Operation Barbatus case:

• The Cop: Jerry Young was a police constable based at Stoke Newington police station in London.
• The Crime: He was involved with a firm called Active Investigation Services (AIS), which sold illegal access to confidential police databases (phone records, bank statements, medical records) to corporate and private clients.
• The Investigation: The probe began after British Telecom discovered a "bogus engineer" planting eavesdropping equipment in phone junction boxes.
• The Outcome: Following a three-month surveillance operation, Young and several other former/serving officers and private investigators were arrested. The network was known for high-end corporate espionage, including charging thousands to bug landlines.
• Convictions: In 2007, members of this network were jailed for offences including conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.

And this upstanding gentleman is who the claimants think should be taken seriously! 🙄 , at this point it appears to me that Sherborne and his clients are guilty of what they are accusing ANL of!

Yeah, a police officer gone rogue is exactly who you would NOT want as your credible expert witness. It’s no wonder they wanted him to remain anonymous. This has turned out to be some farce.

It’s unbelievable isn’t it!!
im now wondering if the judge deliberately decided to refuse the anonymous request because he’s allowing Sherborne enough rope to hang himself and clients and put an end to these cases for good!

So, on the claimants side we have Graham Johnson, a convicted criminal, paying tens of thousands of pounds to witnesses, some of whom are also convicted criminals, among them a corrupt police officer.

On the defence side for ANL, we have journalists who so far have been able to describe where they sourced their stories.

Which side has credibility?

I went down a rabbit hole,. This is a BBC report from the court case in 2007

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7034317.stm

It’s so obviously clear isn’t it! , I’m still waiting for some actual evidence or something to show exactly why this case was ever allowed to proceed.