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

Another one baffled by the seeming lack of evidence. If anything has been shown in court I'm sure The Guardian would be shouting it from the rooftops. So far it seems to be all allegations or supposition without any hard evidence. Surely you can't be found guilty of phone tapping just because a celebrity thinks their friends dont leak?

It's difficult to know if the reporting is biased, and there's more ti it than is being reported, or if it's all smoke and mirrors.

There's always some bias in reporting (even unconscious bias(!)) which is why I'm grateful to everyone who posts links to different publications. The difference in reporting between the Press Gazette and the Telegraph was a good example.

I do think, as you say @MrsLeonFarrell, that if there'd been any significant obvious piece of evidence that had been mentioned in court and wasn't being reported by the publications we've seen for some reason that the Guardian would have reported it. It's not really covered the story very much - just when the main players (celebrities or Dacre, I think?) have been there.

I do keep reminding myself that we're not in court and not hearing all the evidence - sometimes I've made the effort to make this point at the end of my posts, but if I do that all the time it will make for very repetitive posts. If we go to another thread maybe I'll put a comment to that effect in the opening post.

I suppose I feel that if court had been presented with evidence that The Mail had phone tapped that would be headline news. It doesn't seem as if they have that evidence. The fact you (SF or LH)don't like a particular paper isn't evidence that paper has been engaging in illegal activities. So far that seems to be what they are saying though .

Burrows allowed to give video evidence:

Prince Harry trial judge says key witness can give evidence by videolink | Reuters

Agree.

I'm also thinking that if there had been direct evidence shown in court by now (i.e. evidence directly linking one of the disputed articles to UIG and then to ANL) we wouldn't still have the scattergun approach of trying to involve other stories (unpublished ones, or stories about other people).
We also wouldn't still be hearing warnings from Judge Nicklin that certain arguments aren't relevant to what he has to decide.

Thanks @CraftyGin

Struggling to archive the Reuters link - will try again later

The issue has led to lengthy legal arguments, and on Thursday judge Matthew Nicklin overruled concerns from David Sherborne, the lawyer for Harry and the other claimants, to say that Burrows could give his evidence by videolink as he was a "central plank" to the allegations.
"During the trial, which is now I believe in its 29th day, the claimants have relied upon Mr Burrows' evidence to put very serious allegations of wrongdoing to several of the defendant's witnesses," Nicklin said.
"Mr Burrows' evidence is a major component of the claimants' case. Without it, a substantial number of allegations of unlawful information gathering made against the defendant and its journalists could not be sustained."

Good timing 😁

So no, there isn't much in the way of evidence so far...

Well this will be interesting - especially with Sherborne and the claimants now attempting to exclude their own witness.

oooo warming up, getting popcorn ready!
Dacre and Wright have both said that they are being questioned/accused of actions from a statement (Burrows) that was refuted 3 years ago as if they were facts. Sherborne is saying the witness is completely unreliable, he has based most of his case on this unreliable persons statement BUT is behaving as if it was carved in stone on mount Sinai. Sherborne is treating burrows as hearsay testimony so he cant cross examine him either.
Just when you think it cant get any stranger!!!

exactly @binkie163 - is it weird I'm quite excited to hear what he has to say?! Reuters is right to say it could determine the trial result. As soon as I see his name appearing on PA's schedule I'll whack it on here!

This is going to be wild. Can Sherborne even object to statements made by Burrows ?

I’m sure he will try ! Regardless of whether he should or not!

I'm so confused. How can Sherborne continue with a case that relies on a witness he is trying to exclude?

Bonkers isnt it! but then how daft must the claimants be feeling, their rabbit out the hat, smoking gun, prize witness is testifying for the other side.

I am by no measure Harry's biggest fan but in this case I do feel quite sorry for him and Doreen Lawrence who I feel have been brought into the case to give it a high profile and greater credibility. It's easy now to say they should have known better but I feel that they were carefully sold a lemon.

You're not alone in that, MrsLF, but what I really want to know - if Burrows's claim is true - is who it is who's threatened him

It seems downright odd to build a case on his statement and then object to him giving evidence, but I suppose he hadn't claimed it was a forgery then

I feel sorry for DL but not Harry this isn’t his first rodeo with Sherborne, he is fully onboard with punishing the media , any media for his grudges and he doesn’t care if they are guilty or not.

From what's been posted on these threads it appears that not only Burrows has gone but also the solicitor that was supposed to validate his signature. It's all really strange.

It's his grudge that makes him the perfect target. If they lose this case he is going to find it really hard. He wants to hold the press to account so badly and doesn't seem to grasp that the way he is going about it isn't the best way.

Yes I noticed that, MrsLF

It's almost as if neither of them want anything further to do with this, which begs another question ... if Burrows's statement really was forged, who forged it?

I can’t summon up too much angst for any of the claimants, it looks like the majority thought it would be easy money.

I would be amazed at this stage if they win.

Obviously Burrows testimony could change everything but my money is still on ANL.

Wondering if ny of our resident legal eagles could advise ...

If Burrows gives evidence, whether by video link or whatever, and is still supposed to be a witness for the claimants, presumably he can be cross examined by ANL's team?

I'm just wondering if further details of the threats he claims he's had and who's supposed to have forged his statement might come out this way?

The suggestion is that hacked off and Johnson wrote the statement. I honestly believe burrows agreed they could say what they wanted and he would sign it for a large pay off but then ANL wouldn't settle and burrows won't stand by it in court. Paying witnesses is a bit dodgy, especially if no actual evidence to back it up.
It was the same with Christine Hart, she was given money, luxury accommodation, promise of work at a time when she was desperate for money. It smacks of coercion.

Thanks, @binkie163; I hadn't twigged that the alleged "forgers" had already been mentioned, and as you say that's quite apart from the isssue of paying witnesses (apart from genuinely reasonable expenses, of course)