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

Burrows as dodgy as he undoubtedly is, is smart enough not to incriminate himself, knowing colleagues had gone to prison for uig. Its one thing boasting, banter etc but its another to put it in writing and leave himself open to prosecution, as the dodgy copper said, he is angry he went to prison but burrows didnt! other uig's have been to prison and were grateful to be paid for evidence!

The female solicitor who didnt prepare the statement or witness it said it was digitally signed, my insurance company do this and it shows the device used, linked to me to click agree/signed with a passcode. I have not signed a handheld device like a courier and I highly doubt that would be used as the solicitor said no one witnessed?? surely the person holding the unit would have witnessed? no witness has been named despite sherborn saying there is a witness.

I still find the sentence 'i have uig hundreds if not thousands of people for the DM' any solicitor/barrister would want that nailed down to a believable number, a list including connected stories.
'I put bugs on lizs window sill' she didnt report or photograph them (ludicrous) so she has just repeated the claims with no personal knowledge of it until Sherborn, johnson or Grant approached her.
If he is so adept at landline tapping what use is eltons gardener?? when he would have eltons direct line, does elton routinely discuss his childrens surrogate and birth details with the gardener? the surrogate agency had already given the info.
Again mentions he blagged financial info but none of the articles are about financial stuff.

To be absolutely honest had I made a living from criminal enterprise/uig I would never in a million years put it in writing knowing I could go to jail for it in the future. I wouldnt even be drunkenly boasting about it for a 75k memoir unless it was billed as fiction.
Edited to add:
'He asked Sherborne: “Do you actually really believe anyone’s going to write a statement [like that]?”

No, I dont either.

I understand your opinion but I personally don’t think it is right to label Burrows as dodgy. There are a plethora of other witnesses who have made similar claims against the research team. I don’t mean this in an offensive way, but labelling someone as dodgy means you need substantial proof.

Doubt if they could afford to .

I have thought that previously but now I think the claimants, sherborn, hacked off et al have gone along willingly hoping to cash in with huge payouts, pure greed. Hacked off have been paid, witness's paid, sherborn will be paid, even burrows paid, everyone has made out like bandits on this except the claimants who may now be looking at massive bills.
Sherborne's contract with them will be water tight and he will not have proceeded without their full consent. They knew 3 years ago that burrows denied the statement and still happy to proceed.

Yes I know, I was just musing really. It seems very one word against another, but it feels like it would be possible (on either side) to produce some sort of proof of what his signature really looked like at that time.

Of course it’s on Sherborne to prove it rather than the other way around, but if Burrows is using the argument that his signature looks nothing like the one on the 2021 statement, I would have just thought that a more contemporary example might have proved his point a bit better.

Burrows admits to uig for NOTW, sun and Mirror, he made statements to support the claimants in those claims. Some of his colleagues went to prison for it, investigators, journalists and the policeman. It was a sordid and rather dodgy business he was involved in back then. However he denies uig for ANL and so far sherborn has shown no proof that burrows did break the law in this case.

Thanks for that explanation @binkie163, I was getting very confused

That made me laugh out loud - thank you!

Wouldn’t that be great

I expect Sherborne will have nailed down the T&Cs and will easily be able to avoid that, MrsLF, but there's no denying it would be a delicious scenario

We can't yet know if the claimants will win or lose, but if it's the second I wonder if Harry will claim again that nobody told him that might happen?

Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/41111a8695306a91

He's bound to, nothing is ever his fault. Having said that though I do feel that he and Doreen Lawrence are to some extent window dressing for the rest of them in this.

If they win the case I week be very confused because nothing in the reporting has shown any actual proof of illegal activities. Hopefully the Judges decision will explain all.

However, Mr Burrows has since performed an about turn, declaring that a 21-page witness statement dated August 2021 was forged.

I thought this was interesting in the Telegraph - it implies they think he did write the statement - you can not 'about turn' if you knew nothing about it.

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/xMoK0

It sounds like it was a fun day in court.

Much was at stake for both sides as the 10-week, £38m trial edged towards its conclusion. Tempers were frayed, voices raised.

Mr Sherborne initially remained calm, asking Mr Burrows what he had previously told the claimants’ “trusted representative”, Mr Johnson.
If he were looking for proof that Mr Burrows was no longer on his side, he found it.
The private investigator responded: “I don’t think you’ve got a trusted representative. I’ve taken him (Mr Johnson) to court and won. He’s a proven conman, he’s got multiple convictions in court including pouring boiling water over someone’s head and scarring them for life. He’s a thoroughly not nice person.”

He told Mr Sherborne: “The reason you use people like Graham Johnson is that they’re unqualified, can’t be regulated and there’s nobody to complain to.” The barrister applied to cross-examine Mr Burrows as a hostile witness on the basis that he was “not desirous of telling the truth”.

As Mr Burrows ranged freely, making various unsubstantiated statements and allegations about Mr Johnson and others, Mr Nicklin repeatedly stepped in, urging him to simply answer the questions.
It almost became too much. At one point, the judge shouted: “Mr Burrows, please stop.”

That sounds like quite the rollercoaster ride today in court 🤯🤣

I loved this about Mr Burrows:

He said his only link to the Duke had been when he asked his contacts at China White, a nightclub in London, whether they knew who the royal’s drug dealer was.

No wonder they didn't want him to testify.

From the MailOnline:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15672887/Doreen-Lawrence-conned-joint-privacy-claim-against-Mail.html

It refers to Burrows’ “2023 rebuttal”.

Is Burrows finished giving evidence ?

Yes @Justdancevance - I don't think he can have been questioned for very long as the PA copy was filed around 2pm.
Sounds like the judge found him exasperating. But perhaps that was all part of the plan - make him so 'full on' that no part of his statements or evidence can be relied upon.

Nothing on the PA schedule for today. If Burrows was the last witness, they'll have allocated time to prepare closing statements. Suspect we might get those at the end of the week.

Then....we wait.

😂

Ouch!!

OMG 😂

Crikey.

Thanks @TheAutumnCrow

Archive link https://archive.is/RHLwb

Yes, it was reported last year that Burrows contacted the DM in 2023 when he saw a news story that her case was based on his statement. He wrote a statement for them at that point denying it, and wrote the 'new' court statement with independent lawyers in 2025.

Are there any more witnesses to be heard in this case?