Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3

987 replies

bluegreygreen · 19/02/2026 13:46

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
51
bluegreygreen · 25/02/2026 10:05

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

Please, everyone, let's criticise the evidence - on either side! - rather than each other.

OP posts:
jeffgoldblum · 25/02/2026 10:08

PrayForMyBum · 25/02/2026 10:04

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.

Thanks @PrayForMyBum, it’s getting very irritating how difficult it is to follow this case with the picking and choosing what to report!

kirinm · 25/02/2026 10:08

GwendolineFairfax8 · 25/02/2026 09:08

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).

You’d only be happy if they find against the claimants. Unless you’re basing that on a fundamental understanding of the law, then you’re not really in a position to say a decision by a judge is wrong. But you’ve already said - without hearing the evidence - that the law is wrong if the claimants succeed.

jeffgoldblum · 25/02/2026 10:10

kirinm · 25/02/2026 10:05

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).

Enough! These petty squabbles are ruining the thread for everyone!

kirinm · 25/02/2026 10:10

bluegreygreen · 25/02/2026 10:05

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

Please, everyone, let's criticise the evidence - on either side! - rather than each other.

I’ve just been accused of defending Harry and Meghan when a. I didn’t mention either of them and b. She’s not involved in the case.

The bias is showing.

kirinm · 25/02/2026 10:11

jeffgoldblum · 25/02/2026 10:10

Enough! These petty squabbles are ruining the thread for everyone!

You accused me of something that is wrong based on your own biased views.

TheAutumnCrow · 25/02/2026 10:14

PrayForMyBum · 25/02/2026 10:04

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.

Thanks, @PrayForMyBum - I’ll keep an eye out in today’s media.

jeffgoldblum · 25/02/2026 10:15

kirinm · 25/02/2026 10:11

You accused me of something that is wrong based on your own biased views.

I knew your bias before you posted here , but as you posted purely about the case there was no issue, however why you suddenly decided to attack @GwendolineFairfax8, is anyone’s guess!

TheAutumnCrow · 25/02/2026 10:17

I’m looking forward (so to speak) to hearing what Rebecca English and Katie Nicholl have to say, and what the barristers choose to ask them.

jeffgoldblum · 25/02/2026 10:19

TheAutumnCrow · 25/02/2026 10:17

I’m looking forward (so to speak) to hearing what Rebecca English and Katie Nicholl have to say, and what the barristers choose to ask them.

Yes that’s going to be very interesting! , hopefully we will get full coverage!

jeffgoldblum · 25/02/2026 12:17

Ummmm … looking a bit jimmy tarbuck! There .

GwendolineFairfax8 · 25/02/2026 12:29

kirinm · 25/02/2026 09:45

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?

Please list what the Leveson Inquiry actually achieved.

In 2007 Glenn Mulcaire was found guilty of phone hacking and the News of the World was later shut down (rightly so).

Glenn Mulcaire is now chummy with the Hacked Off Team and was paid £22,000 by Graham Johnson who whined to Evan Harris that he was trying to get Mulcaire to ‘up his game’ in terms of information gathering - and Johnson said he had b* Mulcaire several times.

GwendolineFairfax8 · 25/02/2026 12:37

kirinm · 25/02/2026 10:08

You’d only be happy if they find against the claimants. Unless you’re basing that on a fundamental understanding of the law, then you’re not really in a position to say a decision by a judge is wrong. But you’ve already said - without hearing the evidence - that the law is wrong if the claimants succeed.

Have a think and perhaps consider that I may know a lot about this case and the parties involved. I thought my posts made it obvious.

I will only be happy with the right result - ie that these claimants lose.

binkie163 · 25/02/2026 13:03

again says 'No story was published in the Mail on Sunday about either matter.' that is easy to disprove by claimants but obviously they havent been able to do that.
Again I do wonder if the claimants are just muddled up about who hacked who, when and appeared in which newspaper. No one is denying Mirror and Sun group admitted to all of the UIG they have been compensated for their trouble BUT they seem to have absolutely no link to ANL doing it, they and sherborne just seem to be regurgitating the same stuff and pouting! Its not like any of the articles were exclusives (except maybe DL due to special relationship) other papers will have lifted those stories and ANL have already shown that some of the articles appeared in other publications first.
Hiring private investigators was common place then, they were freelance and those investigators would use any means necessary but it doesnt mean every paper purchased every bit of info, it was always hawked out to everyone as are photos but it doesnt mean everyone purchased all the info.
I feel like I must be missing something obvious or maybe it is just a shit show.

bluegreygreen · 25/02/2026 16:01

Thanks for the link @Lunde (and for the one from last night, @ThePoshUns and @BemusedAmerican).

I'm just catching up, and always find it interesting which bits are picked up by each publication.
Here, the main point is obviously that the stories weren't published, so again are not among the articles that the claimants are complaining about (that Judge Nicklin keeps referring them back to).
The Gazette concentrates on 'press practicalities', if you like. It picks up on the fact that Miskiw refers to a 'source' in the 2006 email exchange, so Anderson says he took that at face value and wouldn't have thought of phone hacking. It also mentions the payment to Miskiw.
The Telegraph (linked to ANL through the takeover bid) leaves out those details but goes down the line of the potential 'blackmail' phone call from GJ to Anderson in 2016. Anderson then sends a memo about the call to the legal department in 2018, when contacted by GJ to tell him about the Bylines story.
I wonder if he made notes in 2016? If it were me I think I would - and if there were notes the 2018 memo would be more convincing than if not.
The GJ email to Mulcaire we've discussed here before.

OP posts:
Lunde · 26/02/2026 07:32

Was there court yesterday? I can't find any articles.

PrayForMyBum · 26/02/2026 08:46

Here's PA's account of court yesterday. Giving evidence was John Wellington, former managing editor of the MoS. The managing editor, fwiw, is in charge of operations, staffing, budgeting and legal/ethical compliance. JW is continuing his evidence today, PA says.

@bluegreygreen apologies for posting the whole text - there's no way to archive or link to this.

EX-MAIL ON SUNDAY EDITOR NEVER AWARE OF REPORTERS INTERCEPTING CALLS, COURT TOLD
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
691 words
25 February 2026
17:07
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

A former Mail on Sunday managing editor has told the High Court he was never aware of any journalists at the newspaper accessing someone else's voicemail or intercepting a phone call.
John Wellington, who held the role at the title from 2000 to 2020, was giving evidence in the trial of claims brought by a group of household names, including the Duke of Sussex, against the publisher of the titles, about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
The publisher is accused of unlawful information-gathering, something which it strongly denies.
ANL is defending the claims brought by the group, which also includes Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
In his witness statement, Mr Wellington said: "I have been shown a copy of an email I sent to all staff reporters in August 2006 reminding them of the company's strict policy regarding the use of illegal or unethical inquiry methods including the interception or accessing of telephone calls or messages.
"I explained that this policy applied to journalists engaging in such practices themselves or commissioning outside agencies to do so and that each journalist must be certain that anyone providing information to the newspaper had not used illegal or unethical methods to obtain it."
Mr Wellington added: "In all my time at The Mail on Sunday, I was never aware of any of the journalists intercepting a phone call or accessing someone else's voicemail so I would not have sent this email in response to any incident at The Mail on Sunday.
"I often shared Press Complaints Commission comms or guidance with the Mail on Sunday reporters and clearly, the News of the World allegations were very serious."
The journalist also told the court that, in 2007, editor-in-chief Paul Dacre banned the use of inquiry agents and that, in the run-up to the ban, the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail were "generally tightening the controls" around their use.
The court heard that Mr Wellington was responsible for signing off on payments made by the Mail on Sunday, and approving invoices.
He said: "I first became aware that journalists were using inquiry agents in about 1997 when I started seeing the invoices for these inquiry agents in my role as deputy managing editor and later managing editor.
"My understanding from the invoices that I saw, and my discussions with the desk heads, particularly the news desk, was that inquiry agents were used to get addresses and phone numbers quickly so that the journalists could interview the people connected to a story."
In written submissions, David Sherborne, for the group, said there could be little doubt that journalists and executives across the Mail titles engaged in, or were complicit in, the culture of unlawful information gathering.
He said: "The culture of the Mail on Sunday started from the top. Managing editor John Wellington signed off hundreds of invoices for work that bear the hallmarks of unlawful information gathering, including for indisputable, voicemail interception of Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes."
Earlier on Wednesday, former Mail on Sunday journalist Chris Anderson concluded his second day of evidence.
It is alleged that he received the product of what he knew to be unlawful information gathering by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire via freelance journalist Greg Miskiw - formerly of the News of the World - in relation to Sadie Frost Law and Sir Simon, two other claimants in the case.
He is also alleged to have discussed with Mr Miskiw the "unlawful or illegal services" that Mr Mulcaire could offer the Mail on Sunday.
In his witness statement, Mr Anderson said: "These allegations are false.
"I have never committed or commissioned a third party to commit phone hacking.
"In fact, to the best of my recollection, I was not even aware that phone hacking existed until Clive Goodman was arrested in August 2006, and certainly not as a tool used in news gathering."
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March with a written judgment expected at a later date.
PA Media

PrayForMyBum · 26/02/2026 08:51

There was a much shorter account of the PA copy in the i paper, which isn't worth pasting as it's just a condensed version of the above.

Mylovelygreendress · 26/02/2026 09:02

Thanks @PrayForMyBumand others for taking the time to update us .

jeffgoldblum · 26/02/2026 10:51

Thanks @PrayForMyBum, so have we seen any actual evidence yet? Or is this it !

bluegreygreen · 26/02/2026 11:20

Thanks @PrayForMyBum - no need for apologies, appreciate any updates you can bring!

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/02/2026 11:33

Thanks from me too, @PrayForMyBum

So if Sherborne said: "Managing editor John Wellington signed off hundreds of invoices for work that bear the hallmarks of unlawful information gathering ..." has there been any actual evidence of these "hallmarks" or is this just an opinion?

I realise of course that we're not in court so only get to hear bits, but if any evidence had been provided surely that at least would have been reported on?

Justdancevance · 26/02/2026 11:52

Thanks to all who have been updating on the court case. It’s been so helpful to fill the reporting gaps

Like others I have been waiting to see what evidence £20m of costs gets you, but it has been lacking so far in my opinion.

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 26/02/2026 12:52

I realise of course that we're not in court so only get to hear bits, but if any evidence had been provided surely that at least would have been reported on?

I keep thinking this, if there was something to prove UIG, then they would report it surely.