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

Thanks @ThePoshUns

Archive link https://archive.is/uc3Bt

Thankful I don't have Judge Nicklin's job!

It’s starting to sound to me like the following scenario might have happened:

Burrows is induced to make a statement in order to heap pressure ANL to offer to settle; Burrows somewhat over-eggs the pudding; ANL staff and execs are incandescent at the cheek of it; ANL refuses to settle; Burrows thinks ‘oh shit’ and withdraws his statement, not being prepared to swear to it under oath in court and risk a perjury charge; Sherborne carries on regardless - he knows he’s getting paid via Hacked Off / Mosley estate / clients’ insurance.

Meanwhile Harry is enlisted to recruit Doreen Lawrence.

I’ll have to check the dates to see what’s what. I may be way out there and away with the fairies on this. Wouldn’t be the first time.

Quite possibly.

@Serenster in one of the previous threads told of a case she knew where a witness had done something similar.
If I remember correctly, the witness was furious at being forced to appear in court, having been told the statement would only be used to make the other side settle, and told the court it was entirely false!

I’m glad that this thread is still active given the other shenanigans.
its not a competition as to which story gets more attention.
Both can be worthy at the same time.
I find it hard to see how the case can be settled in the claimants favour, but am aware that the burden of proof is so much lower than a criminal case.
Many thanks to the posters who have kept us updated

IIRC there was a discussion about this in court when Sherborne refused to allow Burrows to give evidence via video link from outside the UK.

Nicklin said something along the lines that he he had not yet decided what weight to give Burrows evidence and that he may disregard it entirely as it was problematic that the ANL side would not be able to cross examine in open court

Anticipating an early settlement seems to be the claimants' strategy which has backfired.

Yes, I think @Serenster had this one spot on with her early musings!

I think this seems to be the original strategy, what I’m not sure of is whether all plaintiffs were aware of this.

Well I think it would have suited most of them (with the exception of DL perhaps) - a settlement would mean Harry could claim total vindication (like he did when he won fewer than half of his cases against the Mirror) and give one of his "dragon slayer" campaign speeches on live TV

i don’t think DL was aware, and I’m not sure if Prince Harry knew or ‘chose not to hear. Shame on ‘uncle Elton’ dragging him into the whole sorry mess, Elton and David are obviously still bitter about their super-injunction fail.

Is anyone able to link the full article please (sorry if it has been done before and I missed it).

Isabella Ritchie used to work for Hacked Off (she was close to Evan Harris and Hugh Grant) and then secured a job with Mark Thomson’s firm. MT was also close to HG and EH but his stance has shifted considerably.

In the court hearing MT says EH asked for a meeting with him and Sadie Frost but EH brought no evidence and MT stated in court his annoyance that his time was wasted.

MT was involved with the victims of the News of The World from the start and he says he knew nothing about these claims resulting from Bylines Times (seriously Evan Harris’ email saying to get around the time limitation should be enough for him to face criminal charges).

Your wish is my command: https://archive.is/fL5VU

Yes, we saw those emails before (though I think not the Press Gazette report, and the Isabella Ritchie name seems new) and discussed them on a precious thread.

MT in court was clearly talking rubbish. There were no follow up emails asking for the 'evidence' that they didn't see and wanted. Instead, there was the follow-up email with the schedule of actions which SF approved.

ETA Agree re EH's email.

I’m just reminded of the Jeffrey Archer libel case which led to his perjury conviction.

Brilliant - thank you so much 👏

I read all Jeffery Archer’s prison diaries (for research!) so I know what you mean. Surprisingly, the other person he was supposed to have conspired with (Ted Francis) was found not guilty.

I sort of took JA’s point when he said how can one be guilty of conspiracy without the other.

I have been very public with my criticism of the lies by Hugh Grant and Evan Harris (and they know who I am). I will say if they sue me for £36 million loss.

Obviously Jeffrey Archer, having been found guilty had to repay all the libel compensation plus damages.

I do wonder about all the lies that are being told in this case - and how they will invalidate the insurance.

As a lurker, I'd like to say how grateful I am to read the posts on this thread, in particular how logical and factual they are. I'm avoiding all RF threads that mention the current crisis (as there are some truly nasty folk about) and it's a relief, when scrolling down to this one, to not have loads of petty H&M threads to wade through! Thank you everybody 👏 👏 👏

I agree. I'm not really interested in the individuals involved - I don't really do 'slebs' - but I am loving the process.

I also feel strongly about a free press, love them or hate them. I think this case is very timely given the huge onslaught of (attempted) cover-ups that we have had to deal with over the last few years.

Does anyone know who is due to appear this week?

Hopefully someone will be able to provide updates this week

That is really my interest @CraftyGin - sparked initially by PH's series of cases, and his lawyer's behaviour after the previous case.

I hadn't read any of the articles before, and had only really heard of the Lawrence story.

@PrayForMyBum usually has a schedule

PA says Peter Wright, former MoS editor, is in today. They also said that last week, but I think they got him confused for Stephen Wright (no relation)!

While we're waiting for an update on our case, news that Josh Simons has been referred to the independent adviser on ministerial ethics to see if he broke the ministerial code over Labour Together's Apco report.

I mentioned the story on the previous thread simply due to the interest in freedom of the press.

Original story https://archive.is/GFEuM

Today's update https://archive.is/NpIyE