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

Sounds like they were FWBs / shagging.

How / when / where and by whom were these texts publicised ? After the trial or as part of the trial evidence?

Such cringeworthy texts....

Part of the trial from how I understood it? So perjury if deliberately false?

It says in the Times article that Griffiths disclosed them to the court as part of her evidence. So pretty damaging to Harry's credibility.

Was this not disclosed during the trial
then - or just publicly made available after?

It was disclosed in her written and oral evidence IIRC - but the actual texts have only been released at the end of the trial today.

Much of the evidence in this case is in the thousands of pages of written evidence and statements etc

Agree.

This section of the BBC report is a bit misleading for exactly that reason - the other 2 groups that Harry took to court were found guilty at Leveson. He won (most of) his case against Mirror Group and settled with News Group.

But the judge in this case, Mr Justice Nicklin, wanted a manageable trial. In contrast to previous cases, he decided the seven claimants could not just be able to reheat evidence previously uncovered, or make general accusations against the newspapers.

My understanding is that it was implied/understood earlier in the trial that Harry called himself Mr Mischief. This evidence on the last day of the trial was a clarification that it was actually Charlotte Griffiths that used this name for him.

They really don’t show him in a good light. Or her .

I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Monteshitshow right now

Definitely!

I can’t see Harry winning his case. Doesn’t bode well for the others.

Slightly off topic but just spotted this on X

CG doesn't come across particularly well but nothing illegal about it. Sordid perhaps.

Thank you so much for sharing 👏

Perjury by ‘Prince’ Harry right there.

Ah but it’s his curated truth !!

Yes, i thought it rather misleading.

Press Gazette summary of trial - again, sorry I can't archive

Press Gazette summary

What a bombshell to end on, poetic that Harry opened and closed what feels like a play.

Sherborne was allowed to review Levenson documents in advance of the trial to assist in his questioning but ANL never admitted wrongdoing at Levenson and no evidence to the contrary was produced as far as I’m aware that he was able to question the journalists.

@TheAutumnCrow linked to the transcript of the Leveson hearing earlier in the thread (or was it the previous thread? I forget).

It was interesting that even at that point the judge had to censure Sherborne for asking Paul Dacre questions which were off topic and for which he had been given no warning.

Found it - it was on the previous thread.
https://archive.is/fqXNe

5.33pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that this particular dispute has achieved a significance "that maybe rather large than it merits" and that Dacre's statement details extensively his newspaper's relationship with Hugh Grant.
5:51pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that it is unacceptable for Dacre to be questioned on issues on which he has not been pre-notified, but accepts that the issue of Grant and the Mail's "mendacious smears" statement has become "totemic". He adds that it is fair to everybody that it is "resolved rather more carefully" than at present.

Yes, the fact that AML weren't tarnished by Leveson was something I hadn't realised before these threads and I found it siginficant

I'm the first to back the media getting a hiding if they really have done what's claimed, but there has to be evidence and from the reporting it just doesn't appear to be there

As for who'll have to pay what, the risk of defeat is always there and frankly I've little sympathy. Just as nobody forced the guilty media to go for UIG, nobody was forcing the claimants to bring the case either - and that includes Doreen Lawrence

So if Harry has perjured himself, as it seems he might have done, is it likely anyone will do anything about that?

Daily Mail summary

DM summary