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

The solicitor gave evidence just before Paul Dacre - I linked to it upthread. Will try to find it again.

I missed that. What was her evidence?

Using investigators who had already been convicted of uig as witnesses, well they were guilty before so might as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb and make money out of it! and yet they haven't been able to show they worked for ANL. In their defence I don't suppose you have contracts that say £5k for phone bugging harry 🤷 that also brings his ppo and met security into question they would be checking stuff like that, part of their job and MI5. They would have got more mileage we now know if they had bugged Andrew the twats phone! Bet they are kicking themselves.

https://archive.is/OZHGh

Here's the link.

It didn't really get discussed much at the time as Paul Dacre started giving evidence the same day, and he was being reported directly from court. We discussed it a little bit on 20/02.

She said she put together burrows statement from Johnson's notes and it was electronically signed but not witnessed by her. She says you can't fake electronic signature. However that was before it was going to court and then burrows said signature was forged and not his words.

Thanks. Seems a bit muddled. I'm not sure how she can be 100% certain the signature is authentic. The whole aspect that someone else put the statement together and then Burrows signed it electronically seems odd too.

I also found this bit a little confusing

She said she had seen an email exchange between Johnson and Burrows’s wife asking for Burrows to sign, and a further email from Burrows that contained the signed statement.

Any time I've had to sign a statement for court there's been a simple request, and I've emailed the signed statement myself - no-one else has been included in the request.
Was there some reluctance to sign in the first place? Why did they have to ask his wife?

Her signature effectively confirms the witness was not asked leading questions in preparing their statement, and did not have any improper pressure put upon them.

Sangani said she had drafted the witness statement from Johnson’s memos of his meetings with Burrows, an affidavit by Burrows himself, a signed four-page note by Burrows and a signed table of unlawful articles.

The other thing I was thinking about - from everything we've heard/read about GJ, I wouldn't like to be standing in court and confirming that he had not put any pressure on a witness, if I hadn't been at every single meeting myself.

It seems really strange that nobody spoke directly with Burrows

The solicitor didn't meet with Burrows directly but wrote his statement based on notes written by Hacked Off "researcher" Graham Johnson - which sounds a lot like hearsay.

Johnson spoke with his wife - not with Burrows

Also Graham Johnson himself is a convicted hacker (suspended sentence from the NOTW scandal) - is it possible that Johnson can forge electronic signatures or hacked Burrows' computer to sign the statement?

Telegraph account of Burrows news today:

Key Prince Harry witness accused of ‘holding a gun to the head’ of court

Archive of Reuters post:

Prince Harry trial judge says key witness can give evidence by videolink - Yahoo News UK

A lot rests on this. The plaintiffs clearly have no case without him but can they squeeze out testimony they want on the stand? I doubt he's going to come across as a reliable witness but maybe if he denies it shiftily enough that will work for the plaintiffs?

Is DS sat at home shitting himself? (Apologies for the crudity but I I couldn't find a polite term that described it quite so well)

Didn't they let Elton give evidence via video link from his home in France?

Thank you @CraftyGin - I'd been trying to archive the Reuters link but it just didn't work for me.

Yes, @Lunde, Elton gave evidence via video link (thouhg I wasn't sure exactly where from).

This is interesting:
Mr Sherborne indicated that he would apply to cross-examine the private investigator as a hostile witness.
I think it's the first time we've had it definitely confirmed that Sherborne is planning to cross-examine Burrows, not treat his evidence as hearsay evidence.

My recollection is that there are 3 statements in total from Burrows (2 of which were statements prepared for court)
1 - 2021 - the statement being relied on by the claimants and verified by Sangani the lawyer
2 - 2023 - the statement written by Burrows and sent to the DM legal team, apparently when he saw reports of the case in the media and understood that the case was being based on his evidence, which he said was false
3 - 2025 - the statement prepared by Burrows with an independent legal team

The question is - will he be asked about all of these?
At least 1 and 3 are likely to be in the court documents; how does the judge decide what weight to give either of them?

The Times:

Key witness in Harry trial to give evidence from secret location

Ummm ! It’s very interesting but I still can’t understand why a case that hinges on a statement that has been withdrawn and branded fake has even gone to court! , the lack of actual evidence just makes it worse!! Why is this proceding when more worthy cases are thrown out?

Thanks again @CraftyGin.

So Sherborne did still want to use the first statement as hearsay evidence, then, and it must have been only after Judge Nicklin said that Burrows could give evidence by video link without disclosing his whereabouts that he said he would apply to cross-examine his as a hostile witness, as I copied above.

Reading all the articles a possible explanation occurred to me. Is it possible that Burrows admitted to using illegal methods in his statement but didn't say he had used them for ANL?. Johnson might them have inserted ANL into Burrows' statement and when he became aware of it he denied it was true? There is no evidence for this but I think it fits the facts we have. Why else would Burrows make a statement and then say later it was false? It also fits with the fact that Johnston put the statement together.

I agree. Harry bit off the hand, lemon and all! Any excuse to have another go at his arch-nemesis.

I assumed reading this that Johnson likely failed to deliver Burrows promised £5k a month and £25k autobiography fee after he signed his first statement and the retraction is payback.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding the situation is it legal to pay (bribe) witnesses?

No, it's not legal to pay for witness statements, beyond reasonable expenses.

I'm sure it's a grey area, in, eg criminal cases that use expert witnesses who are paid (eg medical/technical experts).

PA hasn't listed the case on its schedule today. That either means the court isn't sitting or it just isn't covering today's hearing. Guess we'll find out tonight.

*edited to add that the draft schedule says the court isn't sitting this afternoon. A couple of reporters were due in this morning for short, hour-long evidence sessions, but the draft is now highly unreliable!

Courts don’t tend to sit on Fridays. Or the courts I’m used to don’t - separate division. They tend to use them for application hearings etc.

The experts get commissioned to do the work, though. They wouldn't be paid if they were a witness because they e.g. witnessed their next door neighbour's house being burgled. And if they did witness that they couldn't then be commissioned and paid as an expert in the same case.