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

Very interesting @bluegreygreen👍

Telegraph:

Polo ranch staff told us identity of Prince Harry’s girlfriend, newspaper says

The Times:

Harry trial told: ‘Cronies and hangers-on reveal royal stories’

That’s interesting @CraftyGin.
So much as we’ve been saying a lot of the UIG is down to leaky friends and others in the know.
Also interesting that Judge Nicklin wanted to strike out the evidence Sherborne was putting forward but ANL wanted it to stay so that they could refute it. They must be very confident in their evidence.

Thank you, @CraftyGin.

Still no direct evidence - and another comment from Judge Nicklin regarding the relevance of the evidence to the articles in question.

Sherborne is sounding increasingly desperate

It’s really hard to see how this is going to return a positive result for the claimants based on what we’ve seen so far. We must be around halfway through the trial by now, maybe a little more?

at first I thought 9 weeks seemed like ages but they don’t seem to get through that much each week really. Lots of prep time I suppose.

Yes still waiting for Sherborne to pull the rabbit out of the hat, but I think I’m right in saying he’s had his opportunity.

We are starting week 5 - and I don't think it will be 9 weeks unless Gavin Burrows gives evidence - he must have been pencilled in for about a week

At this point I don’t think he’s got a rabbit or a hat! , I’m beginning to wonder whether he even has a mouse or a thimble!

Eric the Half a Bee?

Maybe not even that @TheAutumnCrow! 🤣

Harry trial told: ‘Cronies and hangers-on reveal royal stories’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/80bbad01-55f9-460b-ad35-74e41ebd5b5d?shareToken=453d66e87d9b892a585c6f8f51a977e5

You don't say...

If anyone has time / inclination, please could I ask : How much of that is Sherbourne’s responsibility- ie, do posters on here think he gave his clients bad advice in saying they had a case despite weak evidence and should he not have taken the case on? If your clients really want you to take on the case, is it still worth doing professionally because it raises your profile, or does it make you look like you have poor judgement?

or, does this case bring about public good even if they lose, because the media will be much more careful going forward ?

((Young person who came with me asking questions , so I thought I’d check with you all as I’m not best placed to give an answer).

@DaftCarInsurance I'm far from being the best-placed person to answer, but I always thought that it was solicitors who essentially put the case together and the barristers who were (later) instructed by them to argue it in court?
So Sherborne may have been brought on board because of his prior expertise in such cases and, I'm sure, may have given some advice on legal strategy and any strengths/weaknesses of the case based on that expertise, but ultimately I think the decision to bring the case would have been made by a much wider legal team of solicitors. So I suspect any 'responsibility' lies with the latter.

Peter Wright will continue his evidence today. It doesn't appear to be on PA's schedule so expect some newspapers will have reporters in the courtroom.

I can't answer your question, @DaftCarInsurance, but had been thinking of asking the very same thing

Obviously we're not in court so aren't getting the whole picture, but to this layperson it's really not looking good for the claimants, and Harry et al whining that their friends "don't leak" really doesn't work

@DaftCarInsurance As I understand it, the lawyers have a responsibility to the clients to tell them the strength of their case. I remember when Harry lost the case against the Home Office, one of his complaints was that 'No-one had told him he could lose'.
Legal experts here confirmed that it would have been very poor practice for his lawyers not to do so.
As always - happy for any input from those who know @Serenster @indianrollerbird @kirinm

What makes me particularly uncomfortable in this case is the impression that this is an ongoing campaign for Sherborne as well as others (thinking back to the transcript of Leveson that @TheAutumnCrow linked to on the last thread).

or, does this case bring about public good even if they lose, because the media will be much more careful going forward ?
I don't think so.
The articles they are complaining about are historical, and practice across the industry has changed significantly, largely as a result of Leveson.
If they lose, ANL will have been vindicated, as they maintained throughout that they have not acted illegally.

Not sure which archive article, the one about SF saying her ex husband (law) wanted to sue Soho house for ecstasy tablet. It could only be from listening to their phone conversation...
Well I'm no journalist but I could have guessed that without any help. Seriously acrimonious split, ex takes child to a drug/booze party and child swallows a tablet off the floor. If I was the raging angry other parent you can bet I would be threatening legal action, you would hear me shouting down the road, no bugging needed!
There are always stories that are easily guessed, fillers, annoyance that produces a reaction to continue fuel the fire and column inches.
Harry virtually writes his own...H angry at press, H unhappy, H threatening legal blah blah, H alarmingly bald, H is the king of the clap back. They don't realise how incredibly predictable they all are it's easy to hazard an educated guess.

Yes am sure Jude Law was pretty vocal about his intentions and wouldn’t have only told SF about it.

I admit the shade thrown at SF about taking her child to a soho party was both amusing and disturbing in equal measure!

Solicitors and barristers work together on cases. I’d imagine the barristers have been involved from day dot on this.

Theres a huge amount of speculation about supposed lies being told on - where is the evidence for that? Not eve lies, perjury! A criminal offence!

If the DM are so sure that there has been dishonesty on the part of the claimants why weren’t they prepared to amend their pleadings?

You’d constantly assess the prospects of the claim as you go along - and certainly with ATE insurers in the background. You’d also tell your client the risks of proceeding to trial (and not many people actively encourage going to trial). But, it could be the case that they got so far, nobody was willing to settle and as most of the costs had been incurred anyway that a decision was made to push on regardless.

Solicitors and barristers act on instruction. Both sides are at trial because their clients didn’t want to settle and / or couldn’t settle.

Thanks @kirinm - that's very clear.