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

I worked for a large property company and needed lots of legal advice. We had three large legal firms and each would pitch their strategy and we’d choose one.

The firms had different approaches, one was cautious, one medium approach and one the most aggressive.

By 'amend their pleadings' - you mean include the 'conspiracy' formally?

Just for clarity, because I don't quite understand the steps. Sherborne objected to them including it in the opening statement, if I remember correctly. Are the pleadings a separate stage? Or a separate document?

I do appreciate your explanations.

Yes - pleadings are at the very early stage. They’re called the Particulars of Claim / Defence / Reply etc. These documents are the basis of the claim and the defence and they can be amended as the claim proceeds (with the courts permission). I am pretty sure from memory that the DM barrister was told that he couldn’t make the comments he wanted to make in the opening statement and that the proper place for them was the pleadings. He could’ve asked for permission to amend but he didn’t. Alleging dishonesty against a professional / anyone would need to have very strong evidence to back it up and it would almost certainly have delayed the trial.

That's great - thank you.

Yes, I thought I remembered him being told not to say it in the opening statement.

Thanks @kirinm. Very interesting.

And there was the mysterious ‘chance encounter’ in the south of France between Sherborne and Harry at Elton John’s villa.

Prince Harry’s long journey to the high court witness box began with a chance encounter with the lawyer David Sherborne at a party hosted by Elton John in France.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/07/its-a-lot-eight-hours-in-witness-box-takes-toll-on-prince-harry

It's clear that Sherborne and Hacked Off were actively trying to recruit people for this case for years before they managed to recruit Harry ... and then he recruited Doreen Lawrence

Has anyone seen any updates?

Telegraph reporting but behind paywall
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2026/02/24/phone-hacker-working-prince-harry-blackmail-mail-boss/

Archive link

https://archive.ph/Ba96V

Yikes it goes from bad to worse - the claimants' "research team" appear to be a bunch of crooks who behave worse than the tabloids.

@DaftCarInsurance

David Sherborne made a lot of money from the Leveson Inquiry. It is difficult to say how much as every freedom of information request is met with ‘not our department’ but given his hourly rate, it was likely to be in the £millions.

Despite claiming to be all about the victims, he found time whist we, the public were paying him handsomely, to start a relationship with ‘the women on the left’ at the inquiry.

www.itv.com/news/story/2013-04-23/leveson-report-carine-patry-hoskins-david-sherborne/

He won the case for Colleen Rooney but a monkey could have as the outcome was obvious. Interestingly, Rebekah Vardy’s lawyer was Charlotte Harris (featured in The Hack). She was assisted by Rosa Malley (now on the board of Hacked Off). Hugh Grant was on such friendly terms with Charlotte Harris that he brought her a thoughtful wedding present and Rosa Malley holidayed with him and Evan Harris (and others).

Charlotte Harris should have told Rebekah Vardy she had no hope - but would have covered herself by suggesting it was an uphill struggle and could then claim the feisty RV decided to press on regardless (so yes I think a civil case can proceed with little hope of success). CH and Sherborne move in the same circles and therefore CH would know DS would not settle out of court for such an easy win.

As will be apparent, I have zero respect for David Sherborne, Charlotte Harris, Hugh Grant, Evan Harris and the rest of the Hacked Off Team who are at the heart of this farce. The complainants are a bit stupid to realise they have been played.

If they win their cases, the law really is an a**

Win or lose, I am looking into who the complainants’ insurers are, as I believe there may be a connection.

So by the statements made here - the Claimant's are saying the Mail was presented with stories about Sadie Frost - that were likely gained from UIG - but the Mail never published them.

And then Harris tried to threaten a Mail editor about that?

It's early and I'm heading to work, but that's what it sounds like on a quick skim.

But they were not gained from UIG. I and many others have been to Soho House although I am not a member and an incident with a child and an ecstasy tablet could have been reported by me or anyone else - staff, members, connected parties to members.

SF’s Nanny obviously was not to be trusted, having had an affair with Jude Law and could easily have leaked information.

I provided a Daily Mail journalist with verified sensitive evidence and he took it back to their legal team which has chosen not to print. I believe that low life Burrows (a former hacker) now buddies with the ‘celebrities’ eg Hugh Grant, Prince Harry, Elton John etc would have tried any tactic with the backing of Evan Harris.

Hugh Grant wrote this on twitter back in 2013. Journalists has obtained his son’s birth certificate (which is a public document available to anyone).

In fact, it turned out to be his second son as his daughter already had a half brother (via Anna Eberstein 3 months earlier). He kept it secret from the Chinese mother, Tinglan Hong who was ‘heartbroken’ when she discovered the truth - but it was inevitable she would find out at some point (though it would have been kinder if HG had given her warning).

Is there a reason you think he shouldn’t be paid?

And as for your comment re the law is an ass - I’d take the view of a high court judge over someone who’s reading snippets from news reporting.

It is a civil case so no burden to the taxpayer and he will be paid regardless. The Leveson money he was paid is public money and if he is found to have acted in a manner not befitting to his profession, he should repay it.

If the judges get it right every time, there would be no need for the court of appeal etc etc

I really do hope justice prevails here and indeed from the press reports, the Judge does appear to have a good grasp on the evidence (or lack of it).

This thread has been refreshing in its lack of unpleasantness and attacks on posters !
let’s keep it that way .

The Leveson enquiry was because the ‘free press’ were engaged in illegal activities which is a public interest issue. Do you think it was unnecessary?

People are pleasant until you challenge the overall anti-claimant position on here.

This is not a h and m thread it’s about the court case , there is no need for you to defend them by attacking another poster because she doesn’t share your opinion!
all the claimants cases look exceedingly weak and Sherborne is not coming out of this looking good either, this view is shared by 90percent of the posters who have been following the case .

coughs just interjecting to say the PA schedule has Chris Anderson continuing his evidence today.
The draft schedule is totally out of the window, but if it were to follow what it says, then Rebecca English is up next, followed by Katie Nicholl....
However, quite a few execs should have given evidence by now but have not, so it's anyone's guess.

This is a view based on a few articles, somebody came on having been into court and said quite the opposite.

I didn’t mention Harry - I said claimants. You mentioned him (and her for some reason).