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

There are many reasons for legitimate criticism of Harry (discussed on other threads), but this thread is specifically to do with the ANL court case.

Being a father with a history of poor mental health doesn't prevent you from needing evidence to win in court.

So true, but some people think that Harry is above criticism. Is it because he's royal?

Harry had no evidence, but he and the others involved in this case chose to go ahead anyway. What about the other people in this trial who's jobs and professional reputations were damaged as a result. What about their mental health?
Not too mention the waste of court time. Many people in this country are patiently waiting, for years in some cases, to have their day in court.

Why would she be different from the other claimants? She chose to take part in the case on the same basis as them.

How much did the insurance cost in the first place? I expect it will have many, many exceptions where it won’t pay out…..

Being a father with a history of poor mental health doesn't prevent you from needing evidence to win in court.

It’s also no defence to starting court proceedings and throwing around serious allegations that other people are dishonest liars who have committed perjury when you have no evidence of this.

So the same as all other insurance premiums then!

BBC is saying Harry is not expected to make a speech on camera. Maybe he'll release a statement.

She was a fuzking disgrace to the DM journalist who supported her.

It was reported that she wanted out and hoped the Mail would settle, but they refused to and so she was stuck (as if she simply discontinued she’d be liable for all their legal costs and ATE insurance generally doesn’t pay out in those circumstances).

I think there is a feeling she was coerced into by Harry (et al) personally providing her with false information. Seems she did try to back out late last year, I feel her reputation is most damaged of all of them.

Yes, sorry - just being very hopeful!

I have a horrible feeling that Sherborne and/or Harry and/or any of the other claimants many use this line in the summary to try to spin something out of the judgement:

It follows that the Court has not made findings as to whether UIG was “widespread and habitual” at Associated.

She's a grown woman. Surely she could have done her own research rather than being 'coerced' by a fool like Harry?

Oh don’t get me wrong, I agree. And I agree with @Twisterr she really stabbed the DM in the back. I guess I was just reflecting on her having more ‘normal’ financial situation (I assume) than that of Elton John, H, etc

I’d love to hear from the DM about this part of the story.

Don't bother, MrsLF; to some it's always "hatred" when harry failing to get whatever he wants is commented on, and the evidence for it seems just as lacking as that of thhe claimants in this case

@bluegreygreen I'm still reading through it so don't yet know if Nicklin's said anything about press freedom ... doubtless one of us will see it first

On the Lawrence section I was also pleased to see the comment "I accept the evidence of Mr (Stephen) Wright" - especially in light of the deeply unpleasant experience the sainted Doreen put him through

Unfortunately so is Harry

I get that, she said he told her they had definitive proof, she foolishly believed him, she probably saw all these high flying legal eagles and was sure they had a strong case, she clearly realized too late and couldn’t back out.

😂😂

Yeah that's true.

I'd love to know about the costs. Will there be a statement about that later or will it be kept private? ANL have specifically said they intend to recoup all their costs. Someone mentioned that the claimants will have taken out insurance but will it really cover all the costs? And would they be spread evenly among the claimants?

Well then, she'll have to deal with the consequences of her choices, just like everyone else.

It’s Be Kind, young couple, young children, mental health.

Never mind what they and their supporters unleash on others. This has been quite a while coming. He’s been slapped down twice in a week.

Now if his wife also can’t slither away from her Machiavellian manoeuvres than that’s a result!

There's a separate costs hearing later this month.

Of course, they could decide to appeal. But the judgment has been written exceptionally tightly, so I'd be surprised if that was a possibility.

I expect the Mail will be arguing for indemnity costs (i.e. they are repaid every penny they have spent) on the basis that such a poor claim should never have been brought

Considering every single claim from every single claimant has failed, I very much hope they'll be granted this, @Serenster
I hold no more brief for the Mail than anyone else, but can't see why they should lose money when the evidence just wasn't there

Maybe the claimants really were just hoping for a payday when they rolled over ... except it didn't work