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

Decision on the claims
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The claims are therefore dismissed.

He lost

.

Implications?

And Nigel is talking in the past tense in his speech...

Decision on the claims 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The claims are therefore dismissed

So does this mean thhey've lost the lot??

Harry's lost, though Mumsnet won - I was refreshing the Beeb, Sky and The Torygraph plus here and we had it first 😆

From the telegraph

So basically the judge decided on the evidence presented, not on emotion or other people's experience?

Can't say I'm particularly surprised going by the case played out in front of the Judge.

What does this mean? Will the insurance cover the losses?

FASCINATING. so no individual pick n'mix of success or failure - just a big WTF were you thinking from the judge. Astonishing, really.

Omg!!!

Judgement summary

Full judgement

From summary:

Decision on the claims
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The claims are therefore dismissed.

Claims dismissed!

Dismissed 🤣

No wonder Harry was hysterically cosying up to dad - how is he going to pay costs!

Bloody hell. This is going to cost him!

To be fair that is what most on the threads were thinking. They didn't seem to have any evidence of illegality.

YAY!!! I hope it costs Harry a lot of money.

Omg! What a huge bill the claimants will be left with.
Goodness me, hubris all the way down.

Whoa, OMG. Total loss.

will he make a speech now?

Did all claimants lose or is this just Harry”s claim?

All of them

Wowzers, although not surprising !

The DM have a headline of "Daily Mail Vindicated" above a headline saying that HAM are the saviours of the Royal Family (presumably because they make them look good by contrast).

He’ll just claim it’s a stitch up.