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

And he met her in house of lords for lunch the day before she testified for some reason!

Thanks all.

"The defendant has never accepted responsibility for a single such act.
"This striking position has been maintained throughout the trial."
Yes, that's the position a defendant usually maintains in court.

[AMW] accused Harry of giving “conflicting evidence” about his knowledge of the Leveson Inquiry, by stating that he did not follow it closely but also that he could remember Paul Dacre, the former editor, “clearly stating that phone hacking had not taken place at Associated”.
Sometimes you need a good memory.

I hope DL has it in writing that PH will pay her legal fees

The Guardian’s take on the case so far is a tad partisan, I feel. But the Guardian would probably love to see the Mail get shafted.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/mar/27/missing-private-investigator-evidence-in-daily-mails-case-stark-high-court-told

Well, it's hardly 'striking' that the defendants don't take responsibility for something they say they didn't do!

There are all sorts of things I don't take any responsibility for - from the discarded pizza box in the street to the current price of oil. A huge pattern of denying responsibility for one thing after another 😮

Is that 'striking'?

Or just because I was not involved in committing those acts?

Also is it unreasonable to not have paperwork for things that happened 20years a go?

Tax documents are 6 years, I think?

I don’t think they’ve proved anything.

Me neither I haven’t seen any definitive proof of UIG , lots of leaky friends though.

So no smoking gun, no big reveal, just a simile (or was it a metaphor? Can’t be bothered to re-read) about pinning tails on a donkey?

Sherborne’s proposition seems to be, ‘There were simply too many supposed leaks from sources for that not to be a problem; it must therefore have been a planned course of unlawful action’.

(He really needs to read Feynman on O-rings.)

So the judge is left with them being out of time (except possibly Doreen L, whose claim will probably fall due to lack of evidence), and a reasonably credible and consistent defence.

I don't think so either.

The judge told Sherborne on several occasions, including in at least one of the pre-trial hearings, that he needed to prove the case for each of the articles under consideration, not make general allegations. I don't think he's done this.

As always, I say this with the proviso that we are hearing (or reading) things at a distance, and depending on reporting - but between everyone we have read several sources each time, and I think if there had been a clear evidential trail at any point it would have been picked up.

Sherborne’s proposition seems to be, ‘There were simply too many supposed leaks from sources for that not to be a problem; it must therefore have been a planned course of unlawful action’.

Yes, @TheAutumnCrow, that kind of twisted logic has cropped up a few times.

You've reminded me of that day back at the beginning of March, where one story was incorrect, so must have been obtained illegally, but the other story was exactly right, so must have been obtained illegally ...
https://archive.is/I8Nqf

Morning all - closing submissions to continue from midday today. PA is planning to cover, so should get a round of articles later on. Not sure if Sherborne finished on Friday and Antony White is starting today or if it's more Sherborne....

Many thanks 🙏

Thank you.

I see ‘sources close to Harry’ are leaking all over the place, including to the Mail, about his Sandringham summer ‘invite’ dreams, before this case is even concluded! He’s such a prat.

The "Sandringham summer" leaks are really strange given that the Royals go to Scotland/Balmoral in the summer and open Sandringham to the public with a whole summer of planned events at Sandringham.

It seems like these leaks are coming from someone who really doesn't know the RF!

App the King goes to Sandringham briefly in the summer before heading up to Balmoral, so maybe it’s Harry Code for ‘I wish to see my father on his own in this specific window of time’?

He can dream on. (Presumably.)

On another thread a poster said that KC3 does a shorter holiday in Sandringham before heading up to Balmoral. Seems like H&M have been told ‘No’ privately but are now going round the back door in using the media to shame KC3 publicly for not seeing his grandchildren (even tho the aim of the trip is to make $$$ for H&M) - RF unusual clap back is fierce.

“But sources close to the monarch told the Daily Mail last night that 'low trust and bitter experience' over a string of leaks and media briefings from 'Team Sussex' in recent years were a significant difficulty in making any progress in restoring family harmony.
A friend of the King said: 'If Harry truly wishes to see his father, he would do well to encourage his supporters to allow such matters to be discussed privately, since low trust and bitter experience in this regard remains one of the principal barriers to progress.”

Guardian article from today - sorry it's not archived, the site I use isn't working for me this evening.

Guardian court report

Has anyone seen any other reports?

From the Times this evening with share token.
Judge Nicklin’s summing up doesn’t bode well for the complainants I would suggest.
Prince Harry’s lawyers ‘reversing burden of proof in privacy case’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/549e98ed-2215-4034-b371-0b562610c179?shareToken=f2db3aea2ab2767932791492325eee5f

judge in the Duke of Sussex’s privacy trial has warned that it would be “reversing the burden of proof” if journalists were required to prove how they obtained information.
The High Court was told on Monday that “ordinary, legitimate journalism” was more likely than phone hacking to explain the sourcing of stories in the case.
Mr Justice Nicklin said that Harry’s barrister appeared to suggest that if private details were published, they must have been obtained unlawfully unless reporters revealed a legitimate source.
The judge said that it was “perilously close” to “reversing the burden of proof” if journalists had to prove their source was lawful 24 years after an article was published, or be “condemned” for unlawful information gathering.
He told David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister: “It is for you to demonstrate there has been a wrong.”

Thanks @ThePoshUns

Sherborne said there was “a culture of widespread unlawful activity” with the use of 14 private investigators to obtain information. He told the court that where there was evidence that private information had been obtained, it was “not necessary to identify the direct route or investigator” involved.

Sherborne is directly contradicting what the judge has been saying throughout this process - that the claimants need to show evidence of UIG in each case.

This is not panning out as a good day for Harry. Metaphorical slap-downs from both 'sources close to the King' and Judge Nicklin. And it's only the afternoon in California.

You reap what you sow. Whether Harry understands that is another matter.