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

Expert witnesses are obviously paid. Witnesses of fact shouldn’t be although I’ve definitely had some ask!

😮

Just to make clear, we did not say yes and just by them asking meant we couldn’t use them.

It was the report last November about Burrows saying his statement was false that first got me following this case (and started the first thread).

As we'll (hopefully) soon have his evidence, I've linked that report again, and also the Press Gazette summary from January, which gave some more details from his statement.

November Telegraph report https://archive.is/YAjNq
January Press Gazette https://archive.is/2BBuX

One thing the PG includes that I haven't seen anywhere else:

There is the usual repeated denial of working for the Mail -
“They asked me on more than one occasion whether I had done any work for the Daily Mail… They told me that the Daily Mail was a major target. I told them repeatedly that I had not worked for the Mail…
“I was not asked to sign a statement in any claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd. I could not have provided any statement because I never did any work for Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday, save for a limited informal assistance on one occasion with an investigation into Richard Branson.”
but this is different -
He said Johnson would come to his house regularly to interview him and he “kept on repeating questions that would refer to the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday”.
“I had told him a hundred times that ANL were not one of my clients.”
However he added: “At some point I decided to tell GJ that I did work for the Mail in order to test whether GJ and his team carried out any due diligence…

This is shocking!

It’s going to be very interesting to see how Sherborne cross examines him. He’s going to have to make him out to be a liar, but not such a liar that it appears that he’s totally un credible as witness and his “original statement” therefore is untrustworthy.

I assume the angle he will take is to try and insinuate that ANL have either bribed or threatened him in some way to change his story.

The ANL cross examination tactics will be very interesting too.

does anyone know who goes first?

either way I hope we get a full report or live reporting on it as it’s sure to be juicy.

However he added: “At some point I decided to tell GJ that I did work for the Mail in order to test whether GJ and his team carried out any due diligence…

Sorry, went off to do something else

What I meant to say was - I wonder if GJ simply saw his opportunity to include this in the statement and ignore all the previous denials? Who knows?

Yes very interesting tidbit! 🤔

@elessar I wouldn't like to be Sherborne.

ANL can say 'He contacted us in 2023. We facilitated a statement with independent lawyers.'
For them, at worst the second statement is kicked out.

Sherborne has a witness who has produced 2 statements which contradict each other, and a huge part of his clients' case rests on it. Whatever the cause of the retraction, the witness has no credibility.

It's like when Judge Judy says "were you lying in your sworn statement or are you lying now under oath?"

Imagine if after all the intrigue and scandal of the case the judge finds for ANL purely on the basis the claimants were out of time.

Or equally decides there was a case for the claimants but it was out of time.

I guess that couldn’t be called until all the evidence has been heard.

I think this is a situation the ANL really want to avoid. They want to win outright based on evidence, rather than what might be seen as a technicality.

If they are seen to be winning on a technicality, the case will just keep rearing in ugly head in years to come.

Morning all. The trial continues today with 'disclosure applications' first - @kirinm can you shed any light as to what those might be (or just what they are!)?

Then the schedule briefly has Peter Logue (who I think is a librarian at ANL - so not sure why he's being called) and then....Rebecca English starting today.

Oooh hearing first hand from some of the journalists will be very interesting! I hope we get proper reporting - I wonder what will be disclosed about her sources!

Very much looking forward to reaading what Rebecca English has to say ...

Thanks for the update, @PrayForMyBum. This is going to be a fascinating day. One can only hope for some reasonably decent reporting.

Aren't disclosures the evidence documents that are provided by each side (usually before the trial starts)?
Perhaps one side is asking to include additional information? (I know this is just speculation.)

Me too .

Could be an application for specific disclosure - i.e. one party thinks another party should have disclosed something that they haven’t and they’re asking the court to force them to disclose it.

Could be asking the court to allow you to rely on something you didn’t disclose but should have.

Specific disclosure seems more likely but this is a total guess!

Coverage has already started of RE's evidence:

https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/national/25899284.duke-sussex-campfire-story-given-mail-someone-present-high-court-told/

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

Archive link https://archive.is/6CveP

So, the source for the 'campfire' story.

And another limitation to us only hearing the reporting of this, not the actual evidence:

Mr Sherborne asked Ms English about an email from Mr Behr to her and Sun reporter Duncan Larcombe, sent in December 2007, which contained Ms Davy’s flight and seat numbers.
The barrister said the information “could only have been obtained from the computer system” of the airline used by Ms Davy.
Ms English replied: “I do not know how this could have been obtained because it was never asked for and it was never acted upon, and so I cannot speculate because I do not know.”

I hadn't realised that this was yet another story where there was some 'information' floating about but the DM hadn't actually used it in a story.

Did it appear in a different newspaper? Investigators tout info to everyone, they work on a freelance basis. If the story didn't appear in the DM what is the point in spending time going over and over it?
If DM or any other outlet requested specific info they would be paying for exclusive use of it for front page, not to file it as unused.

So because The source didn't repeat everything Harry ever told them, Harry believes it could only come from phone tapping? That isn't evidence and is an equally good argument against the information being obtained illegally. If they had been tapping his phone they would know everything and write about everything as opposed to a friends making a decision to pass on something pretty harmless but news worthy.

My circle doesn't leak is unprovable, unlikely and isn't evidence of phone tapping. Is also really interesting that it ignores any rangers or other support staff who might have been present.

Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/bcdd272e204a74e2

A few other sites (from Reddit)

https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/duke-of-sussex-campfire-story-given-to-mail-by -someone-present-high-court-told-YF6QDPXQDJIWVN3B56EFKENJ2Q/

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/duke-sussex-campfire-story-given-122309168.html

https://www.expressandstar.com/uk-news/2026/03/02/duke-of-sussex-campfire-story-given-to-mail-by-someone-present-high-court-told/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-high-court-mail-b2930183.html