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

This is very damaging for David Sherborne

There was a report earlier in the week that it was embargoed to lawyers only. It's that correct? Is it possible Harry didn't know?

Wonder if he'll get paid.
Or sued, for not warning H he might lose.

Same.

They were talking about events from such a long time ago and in a different world tech and press wise, it was always going to be incredibly hard to prove. Seemed very risky to bring a claim in those circumstances.

It's the right outcome for press freedom. Celebrities throwing tantrums because they don't like the reporting is no basis for restricting such a crucial freedom that has such a major impact on society.

If Harry is attempting to snuggle up to his royal heritage and his father to help deal with the consequences, he seems to have gone about it wholly in the wrong way. His ridiculous leaking, dithering, public annoucements and so on are very obviously going to alienate anyone in the royal camp.

This is a link to the other HAM article on the DM at the moment. Amanda Platell saying that scandalous behaviour and gossip keeps people interested in the royals.

https://archive.ph/XOD17

LOL!

Anyone seen any statement from the guy with the hair?

HAM gonna need Pa to help with the paying the bills.

I suspect Sherborne will be lying very very low.

Yes, he'll have to ask his Dad for more money.

Harry's evidence was "limited".

That would be a first.

I don’t understand the Harry hatred on here. If one was to apply an empathic lens it doesn’t take a genius to work out why he has wanted to take this to court. He is at the end of the day a Dad who has suffered poor mental health in the past. Be kind.

I notice that the Judge was careful to say that the time limitation argument from ANL want necessary verbatim of the lack of evidence. That takes out one argument the claimants could have spun, that they were right but too late. The judgement really does seem to be trying to draw a line under these cases.

The taxpayer funded, overburdened legal system isn't a venue to indulge your grievances, real or imagined.

He chose to bring a case. He lost. He's going to have to pay.

Away with your passive aggressive 'be kind' shyte!

Where is the hatred? 6 celebrities made very serious accusations of illegal information gathering against journalists. During the trial they presented no evidence to prove illegality and thus have lost the case.

Surely it's always a given that anyone might lose any case?

Criticism isn’t hate. HTH.

I have read the summary but haven't had a chance to read through the judgement yet (and may not have until this evening).

For anyone who has - did Judge Nicklin say anything more generally about freedom of the press, or did he stick to discussion of the evidence?

This. There is no hatred.

Aren't solicitors legally obliged to give clients regular updates on the chances of victory if they proceed with a case? As well as the potential costs should they lose?

How much does PH owe from the last case he lost? With that one and this one, even selling the mansion isn't going to come close to what he needs.

Harry is lucky Farage has taken him off the rolling news.

Maybe PH’s ‘planned victory speech’ - was a quote taken out of context in response to a Q from a journalist that asked would you consider it a victory even if you won only one from 14.

I’m pleased with this result from a straightforward common sense legal perspective but also from the preposterous demanding celebs who have all lost touch with reality and who’s ego’s could do with reigning in.

Has Harry made a speech?

Ooooo the double 2pm whammy of this judgement and Farage has made my day. I’ve observed these threads and loved all your insights but never posted until now.

what does this mean for Doreen Lawrence do we think? I couldn’t care less about the others, but I’m trying to wrap my head around the financial implications for her.

The full judgement covers 436 pages!