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

Yes I recall the to-do over DL's racism allegations about Grenfell, @TheAutumnCrow. The cry of "It would have been different if they'd been white" is often sadly predictable, but seems pretty unfortunate behaviour about a fine bunch of people who risk their own safety for us

I didn’t say anything about it all during the active court case because I was interested in seeing what others thought of DL’s evidence on its own merits, iyswim.

Good call! , her evidence was as manufactured as the rest but on that I give her a slight pass as obviously Harry was used to bring her in , we have no idea what he told her or the manipulation he used! , however as a grown woman who apparently is deemed capable enough to have a seat in the House of Lords , I would have expected her to be more careful when she realised that burrows was a damp squid! .
this new information has tainted any sympathy I may have retained!

Thanks @TheAutumnCrow - a very reasonable decision on your part.

For the same reason I tried to keep the thread away from opinions of PH as a person.

Me too. I can see why she'd get on well with Harry and his 'truth'.

I feel very sorry for DL the grieving mother who was so horribly let down by the Metropolitan Police - the same police that contained criminal elements in cahoots with OCGs, and that very probably did unlawfully surveil her (having labelled her a nuisance and a reputational danger).

Her loathing of the Met however is affecting her judgement to a degree where I now think that her elevation to the role of upper house parliamentarian has been a mistake. She uses her role, and is used in turn by others, for the furtherance of personal grievances.

That some of these personal grievances may potentially be attached to financial motives makes me feel really pissed off actually.

Agree again - that time must have been horrendous for her, but does not obviate her responsibility now.

I know someone who attended the fire at Grenfell and he is still traumatised by it. I feel very sorry for DL but she has gone right down in my estimation for those comments.

DL is not the first bereaved mum fighting for justice to have been found attractive by politicians for their own ends. But whilst we should definitely listen to them and right wrongs, I am not convinced this makes them the best people to consider broader issues. They tend to be pretty singled-minded - they need to be - but this can also mean blinkered.

Very well said 👏

That’s very disappointing. Firemen and women risk their lives to save people.

I went to a talk by Dany Cotton who was head of London fire brigade at the time of Grenfell and on site with her officers. What they did was heroic they were going in with no comms time and again to get as many people out as they could. To be accused of racism when they put their lives on the line beggars belief.

That's terrible- the lack of apology makes it even worse.

If she were accusing the corporate structures who made Grenfell possible, that would be one thing.
But the fire brigade who risked their lives to save people.....!

Yes, I agree, DL made a serious mistake. It’s one of things that to me showed her judgement is way off - the fire brigade (Fire & Rescue and the FBU) were one of the main critics of the corporate structures responsible for the Grenfell tragedy. IMO she should have joined forces with them, thanked them, and sought answers from the Local Authority and the government as other parliamentarians were doing.

Precisely, TheAutumnCrow

For a "campaigner" you'd have thought that adding her voice to the push against those corporate structures would be a useful thing to do, but unfortunately the choices she made just look like scattergun spite

Wow - that’s some grandiose statement.

I’m quite disturbed that our emergency services have to divert critical resources to provide one on one reassurances and insights to an individual who was happy to slander them publicly without doing her own due diligence.

Her own racism displyed in this matter is breathtaking.

High Court home-from-home:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/8b2415659b1224e9

PH being sued for libel by Sentebale.

Wowzers!! 😳

I shouldn't laugh but 😂😂😂 🍿
I suspect that being a corporate lawyer (iirc) she will have all her ducks in a row.
If he loses ANL case, then this on top ouch.
Let's see how he likes being accused of racism!

Statement by Sentabale’s Board:

10 April 2026, LONDON, UK
Sentebale has commenced legal proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales. The charity seeks the court’s intervention, protection, and restitution following a coordinated adverse media campaign conducted since 25 March 2025 that has caused operational disruption and reputational harm to the charity, its leadership, and its strategic partners.
The proceedings have been brought against Prince Harry and Mark Dyer, identified through evidence as the architects of that adverse media campaign, which has had significant viral impact and triggered an onslaught of cyber-bullying directed at the charity and its leadership.
Sentebale has experienced the adverse media campaign as false narratives circulated through the media about the charity and its leadership, attempts to undermine its relationships with staff, existing and prospective partners, and the forced diversion of leadership time and resources into managing a reputational crisis not of the charity’s making.
Sentebale’s development sector funders have maintained 100% of their financial commitment throughout this period, and the charity has been deeply moved by the continued generosity of individual donors who have stood firm alongside them. The commitment of our partners and donors reflects a shared conviction that good governance is fundamental to the integrity of any charitable organisation, and their faith in the continued work of the charity. It is also a reflection of the resolve of the Board and the teams in Lesotho and Botswana who have remained resilient and focused on the work in the face of sustained pressure.
At a time when international aid is contracting and the needs of children across Southern Africa are growing, the work Sentebale delivers for 78,000 young lives is increasingly critical. The charity should not continue to use its resources to manage and address the damage this adverse media campaign has caused to its operations and partnerships. This must stop. The Board and Executive Director have taken this legal action to secure that protection. The costs of doing so are met entirely by external funding and no charitable funds have been used.
The Board and Executive Director trust that those who believe in Sentebale’s mission will understand why this legal action, whilst difficult, was necessary and important, and will continue to stand with us as we focus on the work ahead.
Sentebale’s focus remains where it has always been: the children and young people of Lesotho and Botswana.
Sentebale does not intend to comment further on this matter while legal proceedings are ongoing.
Issued by the Board of Trustees and Executive Director of Sentebale

Well , this should be interesting 🍷 🍿

Thanks @CraftyGin and @Serenster.

I assume this will relate to the social media campaign that resulted in a couple of the new trustees resigning after a few months in post.

Sensible, I think, that the statement comes from the board and CEO, not the chair, and confirms that the legal action will not use charitable funding. There is still the risk that this is seen as a further example of an interpersonal disagreement between Harry and Dr Chandauka, and a risk to the charity's reputation from that perspective.

Isn't it difficult to be successful in a defamation case?

Edit: archive link to Telegraph https://archive.is/GNlyw

Well it will be making Harry uncomfortable at the least. And livid I assume. What a shame 😁

Also in the Times. Follows on from Bowers book which for me really did a complete about face on the narrative.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/59337a52-409c-4c8d-b5fd-37e78f5082fc?shareToken=703d41feba7cf0215c1d85df99b0ce0d