Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 4

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fourth thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) brought against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited; ANL) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).

The claimants are: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF).
They are represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) is represented by Anthony White (AMW).

The threads to date have been thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views. We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding partisan discussions on specific Royal Family members, and trying not to be derailed from the topic of court proceedings.
The case has concluded and we are now awaiting the judgement from Judge Nicklin.

We have also included (when things slowed with the title case) other cases or discussions with a specific theme of free speech/press freedom, particularly when related to those with money or power preventing others from speaking.

One current ongoing case is that involving @GwendolineFairfax8 - some details towards the end of thread 3.
The case is in court this week and is likely to be reported on at the end of the week.

Links to previous threads

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

There was limited direct reporting from court after the celebrities gave evidence; what there we followed on this link
Sky news link to court case

I'm also interested in how the media report the verdict, whether Harry has won something or not. Last time he won part of a case the media reporting made it sound like he was totally vindicated.

The BBC have a very low key article saying if it's a partial judgement everyone claims victory. I don't remember them pointing that out last time.

Checking in in readiness for the verdict and looking forward to enlightening commentary.

Someone on here said they are not a fan of the Daily Mail. I was the same - for no real reason other than it was drummed into me that I should not be reading the Daily Mail ‘drivel’.

I now have firsthand experience of its journalists and I am impressed - not only by them but also the checks they make to their legal team etc.

I know everything about the News of the World (NGN) scandal - and this is not the same at all.

Apologies for repeating myself but I’m old enough to remember when Paul Dacre put the photos of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers on the front page. I realise now what a massive risk that was - yet he took it. Neville Lawrence had been working in his home as a plasterer.

Some 25 years later, Doreen Lawrence (who has unlimited resources at her disposal) joins this David Sherborne/Hugh Grant/Evan Harris circus.

It is all one big lie. I hope the Daily Mail will again be brave enough to print the evidence it has.

If the trio is reading this (!) come sue me if I am wrong.

How many claims did Harry put forward? All this talk of maybe he’s won one, out of how many?
And does this affect his cost liability?
sorry for the numpty questions

I think 14?

I know a former DM showbiz journalist.

I'd not call her a nice person, but if say what she describes is a sort of weird parasocial relationship between celebs and the press. She's gone into PR since because that's basically what showbiz reporting was. Leaks and promotions to influence and titillate and point-score with the public, all dressed up as "investigation".

What's interesting is the huge amounts that doesn't get reported under the system! One could argue that it's not the public's business, but obviously if someone is allowing leaks and photos to boost their public profile, it's hypocritical to apply different rules to the bad stuff (looking at you, Beckhams).

Weirdly, she's a huge HAM fan, but she does have a weird relationship with her own family.

Well something’s afoot.
DM doesn’t have any of its earlier running stories of Harry’s visit to uk.
nothing. Nada.
make of that what you will 😂
Have they stacks of stories just waiting for the off, or are they quickly rewriting stories in a fawning way.
hopefully it’s the former and we can look forward to lots of salacious articles being dumped this afternoon 🤞

One could argue that it's not the public's business, but obviously if someone is allowing leaks and photos to boost their public profile, it's hypocritical to apply different rules to the bad stuff

I think that was the essence of this case: the celebrities didn't like what was published, so tried to prove that it had been obtained illegally.

Just a heads-up that the Sky News Link in the OP is live again in readiness for the judgement being reported.

ETA copied here: Sky News link to court case

I can still see the King in the tank and PH looking sad

Waiting with bated breath

Me too, despite best laid plans I am free now but likely to be unavailable at 2pm. How annoying.

Dh has been out all morning. Guess what time he’ll be back to regale me with his day? 😒

The story about the chaos around Harry’s visit is there, just quite a way down. It’s alongside an article about Sophie making espadrilles the show of the summer 😂
And underneath Carole and Pippa at Wimbledon 😬

I’m playing bloody golf this afternoon at 2. 🤬🤬

Can you ‘regale’ us with his day?! 😊

I doubt it will be that exciting 🤣

I don't work Mondays and I didn't stay up for the football regardless, but I consider that a lot of my colleagues will have wasted a lot of time yesterday.

This is my World Cup, and I will take my alloted time wasting accordingly. It's the same spirit in which I read about the Met Gala and Eurovision the workday afterwards.

Heatstroke on the 3rd and straight back to the clubhouse with laptop and iced drinks. Sorted .

This is interesting.

BACK CHANNEL
Prince Harry & Doreen Lawrence Tried to Back Out Of Daily Mail Hacking Trial

THE UPSETTER
JUL 7

∙

PREVIEW

READ IN APP

Judgment in the hacking claim brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, his husband, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes against The Mail newspapers will be made public at 2pm today.
The claimants launched the action in 2022 with great fanfare about shocking allegations of burglary, blagging, bugging and phone hacking by private investigators instructed by the newspapers’ journalists.

With national treasure Doreen Lawrence on board, thanks to Prince Harry telling her she had been hacked, there was hope the newspaper group would fold and pay up quickly to avoid a costly and embarrassing trial.

Instead, it dug in for war. It was a four-year campaign conducted by an army of solicitors and barristers responsible for disclosure and marshalling witnesses ready to appear when the trial began earlier this year in January.

The Upsetter’s coverage was the first to question the evidential basis on which the claimants, especially Lawrence, had mounted their claim. This newsletter also examined the conduct of their legal and research teams in assembling a cast of characters as witnesses of truth.

It can now be revealed that Lawrence, Harry and the others were not as Gung Ho about the strength of their case as they, their lawyers and the Hacked Off lobby group behind them wanted the public to believe.

Last December, just before the trial started, an informal back channel was set up in a last minute bid by the claimants to back out of the trial and hope The Mail would settle.

The winners and losers will become public in a few hours. For now, here’s the exclusive story of that back channel.

Simon Hughes was warned by the judge against self-incrimination whilst giving evidence.

That looks interesting, though I'm not a subscriber so can't read the full story.

The Sky page is rerunning some of the claims made by the claimants on their days in court. It has also put up the post it previously had of the articles that Harry was basing his claim on (for the person upthread who was asking about them).
It reminded me how little evidence they had, when we discussed them here at the time.
EJ complained that the story of his illness was false - but it came from his own publicist.
DL claimed that she would have a conversation with the police and see it in the papers, and then said that 'the police leaked things'. She had also on the one hand claimed she gave an phone interview to someone because they falsely claimed to be from the Guardian, but on the other said she never gave telephone interviews.
SF brought a claim about a story which the DM had not even run when she had denied it.
That's even before the whole issue of the timeline, with emails from SH and SF dated well before the cut-off date.

These are just the things I'm remembering, without going back through the threads. Whatever the outcome, I will read back at some point.

LTB
(and change the locks)

🍿 is it wrong that I am literally rubbing my hands in glee. The distain I feel for the complainants bringing what appeared a very flimsy but also dodgy as hell case, rich people shilling for money.
I couldn't read the article about DL and h trying to back out.