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

Give we are on 900 comments is it worth setting up a new thread now in preparation for the verdict? @bluegreygreen
I would love to be able to discuss the outcome in a similar way without getting dragged into H & M bashing.

If so could we enable a vote for guilty/not guilty please?

Yes, thank you everyone for the info and the intelligent debates that ensued. Though we all seem to agree that Harry had loose lips and moved in gossipy circles, presumably the court's decision on his case will be based only on evidence (which seemed a bit thin on the ground). I don't have any sympathy for any of the other claimants as the bandwagon seemed intent on bullying the opposition into submission (even for DL who I did feel sorry for at the start). Now for the wait....

I've had a grim 2026 and this thread has been my daily entertainment. I've learned lots about the UK judicial system. I'm really hoping at some point that this becomes a miniseries. Many thanks to everybody who provided the articles and legal references.

BTW, if I were Charles, I wouldn't bail him out

Will keep an eye on the thread and definitely plan to set up a 4th one when needed @stayathomegardener - I suspect it may not be for a while yet as posting has slowed now that the trial is over.

I'd prefer not to set up a verdict thread with a vote - that would be more likely to get into factional arguments, I think.

Thanks @bluegreygreen

thank from me also and agree , starting a thread to soon this far from the verdict will probably only make it a target 🎯

Very well put, Binkie163

In the midst of all the posturing, Stephen Wright's excoriating testimony struck me as one of the more honest moments, and while I agree with JSMill that DL shouldn't have to be "grateful" for his assistance I honestly feel she's done herself no favours here

As many have said the lady has agency, and apart (obviously) from the original tragedy I'm afraid I can't go along with the "poor Doreen" narrative on this

KC won’t bail him out especially not in terms of paying court fees - he will stay well away from that.

I expect at this point the limit to which KC will bail him out is so he has a comfortable place to live and money to live on (at an appropriate level) but even then that won’t happen until PH has spent his own funds.

Now that the trial is over, focus will move to the RAVEC review

I have mixed feelings about DL. I have some sympathy toward her being drawn in at the start, but she is an adult and is responsible for her own due diligence, and for stopping when it became clear that things were not straightforward, and that the evidence was not as described.

When we discussed this on the other thread, I said that I thought she may be psychologically vulnerable to believing that she had been hacked because of the previous phone tapping by the police (despite apparently training as a counsellor, which should give her tools to help).

I do wonder if she and PH are psychologically similar in that they may both be stuck in the situation where they believe their own 'emotional truth' rather than the factual truth. If that is the case, no amount of factual evidence during the trial would be likely to change their minds. (I have personal experience of this.)

I hadn't thought of it that way.

Given her history and public profile, I am sure that she will have had police and political organisations and activists, as well as the media, taking an interest in her for different reasons and at different times.

So she will have noticed odd things over the years - none particularly worrying or significant on their own but put them together and... well, there's a phenomenon.

Then here comes a Prince of the Realm with a single-villain story and a witness statement to back it up. All the anomalies explained, and possibly a cheque. A psychological fit.

Except for the fact that Doreen Lawrence has already given evidence under oath at the ‘Spy Cops’ Public Inquiry as recently as November 2025 that she accepts the Met as the villain of the piece. She says she knows that the Met were unlawfully surveilling her (including bugging).

That’s some serious cognitive dissonance going on (at best).

I think she also knows that her estranged husband Neville talked to the Mail a lot because he knew Paul Dacre. That’s how the whole Dacre/Mail investigation started.

Thanks @TheAutumnCrow.

I think I remember correctly from our discussion on the last thread that there was unlawful activity from the Met Police in relation to DL?

Unfortunately when I search at the moment all I'm finding are links related to the current case.

There's this from 2023, @bluegreygreen, though I can't find anything more recenthttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/649d873206179b00113f7550/Undercover-Policing-Inquiry-Tranche-1-Interim-Report.pdf

Also this, apparently from November 2025 (?) so I'm not sure if it's still going on?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-apologises-undercover-officers-spy-doreen-lawrence-b1259055.html

As it says, the Met are reported to have apologised to DL, but whether they actually did anything illegal I wouldn't know

I know I posted a link a while back, @bluegreygreen, to DL at SpyCops giving evidence. It may have been this one.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/20/doreen-lawrence-deeply-painful-to-learn-undercover-police-spied-on-family

Earlier, Lawrence told the public inquiry she had found it “deeply painful” to discover how police had deployed the undercover officers.

She said the police’s priorities were “completely misplaced” as they should have been concentrating on bringing the racist murderers of her son to justice.

She called the covert surveillance “disrespectful and dehumanising”. “Stephen was an innocent young man. Our family did nothing wrong,” she said.

In a statement she described how the surveillance took place while she struggled to cope …

… The inquiry was set up after Peter Francis, an undercover officer turned whistleblower, revealed in the Guardian the existence of the secret monitoring.

Extract from article ^^. She talks under oath of ‘… the extent of the resources, time and effort that were directed towards monitoring our family …’.

She also is very dismissive of Michael Howard the then Home Secretary. Accuses him of lying, effectively. (He sits in the House of Lords with her - awkward). I don’t think she’ll win this point against Howard, thus increasing her ‘loose canon’ reputation in the Lords.

Why on earth were the police bugging her?

Apologies - I may have remembered incorrectly and it wasn't unlawful, but I knew it had happened and then couldn't find it again. Thanks @TheAutumnCrow and @Puzzledandpissedoff.

My point was that having had that happen at a horrendous time for her, she may have been psychologically vulnerable to any suggestion of other people doing it (despite, as we've said before, having training that should give her tools to help).

Then the grown up thing to do was speak personally with her friends and constant support network at the DM. The met and other media admitted liability due to overwhelming evidence, the mail hasn't but she is happy to throw them under the bus for a big cheque.
Not just Michael Howard but a journalist in the house of lords was accused by her and others in this case, can't remember witness name. I personally know 2 labour peers in the house and they are distancing themselves from her. This has nothing to do with damaged vulnerability and everything to do with greed, same as the others in the case.

Then the grown up thing to do was speak personally with her friends and constant support network at the DM.

I totally agree, @binkie163. I was just thinking about a potential vulnerability, while (I hoped) pointing out that didn't change her personal responsibility.

I haven't followed her other than this case, so can't comment on motivations otherwise.

She embroiled herself in controversy over the 2019 Grenfell Tower disaster, ‘insulting’ and alienating the very Fire Brigade Union who were pushing for investigation the housing policy of Ken & Chelsea council. She said they’d have rescued ‘white people’ and that the Fire & Rescue response that night was ‘racist’.

At first she refused to apologise. Finally she did apologise - on Twitter.

Taking to Twitter, she said: "I've Met @LondonFire & @LondonFBU. I am reassured race played no part in their response to the Grenfell Tower fire. Learning about the conditions firefighters faced that night has been insightful, apologies for any upset caused. I'm confident how valued equality is to LFB & FBU."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/doreen-lawrence-sorry-london-fire-brigade-grenfell-DWyfYN_2/

That is horrible @TheAutumnCrow.

As an NHS clinician with a role in major incidents, I can understand in some measure how outraged the firefighters will have felt.

And now she’s Harry’s ticket in to the House of Lords. I wonder if Ed Miliband will ever regret nominating her (she sits on the Labour benches).

The FBU was badly stung by her allegations of a racist response at Grenfell. Here’s their statement in response:

https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/10/18/fbu-responds-baroness-lawrences-racism-allegations-channel-4-news

Tbh her eventual apology wasn’t up to much either. ‘Apologies for any upset caused’. Yeah, righty ho.

btw I’m predicting that Judge Nicklin may have written a lot of the background & legal framework element of the judgement already, and is now working full-time on placing the courtroom evidence into this outline framework.

He may well surprise us with a judgement by July.

That’s shocking, I didn’t know she threw out racism accusations at the firefighters, and yes a pretty half hearted apology.

Indeed I’m shocked and hate to admit this has seriously tarnished my opinion of her!