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

Just to note - these days judgments are”handed down” electronically - you no longer have to physically attend court for the judge to read out their summary. The judge’s clerk sends the legal team an email with the final version at the appointed time, and that ends the embargo.

The final version is then posted here https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk (you can see it already has judgments issued earlier today listed) but it tends to take half an hour or so for the link to be posted. The winning party will obviously be making a big splash as soon as they get the email from the clerk, however, so the Sky link is probably the best place to look for it.

That made me laugh. He’s a good bloke really. And has looked after me very well, in all my illnesses, so I can’t really complain. Though I might do today 😉

BBC also have a live page now too.

I have been mindlessly refreshing looking here too

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/

Yes, I've had that tab open for weeks, @NormalAuntFanny

If it helps there's another link here which Serenster posted earlier: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

They're probably all much of a muchness, but I found this one does go directly to the judge's remarks if that's any use

The DM headline will be interesting.

I am trying to hold off a meeting - the analogy with the England match is a good one- although I think my work would think I'm batty for being interested in this.

Although apparently Farage is going to make a statement at 2pm- does he hope it will be lost amongst the ANL report?

I was pondering the opposite, wondering how much Harry had to tip him to deflect attention 😂

Ironically Harry and Farage had the same "pub bloke" positive PR spin, whilst both being very much establishment.

BBC stuck between Harry and Nigel!

How unpleasant for the BBC!

But focusing on Nigel on the news channel, i teresting

Nigel is winning the popularity contest of the live pages.

Realistically Nigel it's the more influential figure at the moment. Harry's case is historical.

no headlines yet, which suggests it might not be clear cut....

Judgement released, being read

Ooooh

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lawrence-and-others-v-associated-newspapers-limited/

He's lost

For the reasons explained in the Judgment, the Claimants failed to prove their pleaded allegations of UIG. The Court rejected the attempt to prove the claims by broad inference where there remained a legitimate and realistic possible lawful source pathway, or where the article-specific evidence did not prove that the relevant information must have been obtained unlawfully.

• *The Court also held that the parties were bound by the cases they had pleaded. It was not permissible, at trial, to replace a pleaded allegation with a different, and in many instances more serious, allegation of UIG.

The claims are therefore dismissed.

Lost! He beat Nigel to the headline though

Double oooh

They’ve lost!

All claims been dismissed as the claimants failed to prove the allegations

He's lost...