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

Harry what a baby. You lost. Grow up. Accept it like a man. You have lost that last vestige of self respect you had.

Who is the ‘young girl simply visiting her boyfriend’ on a BA flight? Meghan in her mid 30s???

What Harry and Doreen don't appear to understand is that the Sun and the Mirror started their cases at a disadvantage - these newspapers had already admitted to unlawful information gathering at the Leveson Inquiry so the claimants could use this to attack their credibility.

But the Mail always denied UIG consistently - so the burden was on the claimants to present proof of how each story could only have been sourced by illegal methods - which they failed to do.

Also important to remember that Harry only won 15 of 33 cases against the Mirror and was awarded £140,000 (hurty feeling are worth less than £10K) - which makes the £50million 😲 costs incurred on this case seem absurd.

The gravy train of suing the press has come to an end.

Yep. Total toys from pram. No dignity or maturity whatsoever.

At least there was no indication they intend to appeal. Not that the courts would entertain them.

I’d expect nothing less from Harry.

DL should know better, but if she’s still aligning herself with this idiot then she deserves no sympathy.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous that the statement is basically “well we won these other cases so we should have won this one” - completely ignoring the fact that not only did ANL never admit UIG during Leveson which the other publications did (so it was a totally different start point), but that a case has to be won and proved on its own merits, not just because other cases had been successful.

Complete muppets.

It was Chelsy (who by all accounts had a very leaky circle of Uni friends who were happy to earn £200 by phoning in a tip)

None of the cases involved Meghan - all of Harry's articles were published between 2001 and 2013 so years pre Meghan.

The main issue seems to be that Chelsy didn't want the Harry circus and they broke up. IIRC Harry wanted Chelsy to join the case but she refused - she's moved on but Harry hasn't

This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous Judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (who were represented by, at the time, the Judge who made this decision)

This part of the statement really makes me cross. Harry is insinuating the judge was biased because of who he represented while still a barrister. Sherborne must have signed that off - it’s such a breach of the bar’s professional values, I really can’t believe it.

No wonder Charles was wary of Harry attacking individual judges against a Buckingham Palace backdrop…

Chelsy has just had her third child, runs her own successful business and is living in Mauritius with her handsome husband.

She's well rid.

This story is completely over shadowed by the Farage story. I bet he was hoping it would be the stop story so he could gain sympathy 🤣..I really hope he now stops thinking of himself as the number one and realises our country has far more pressing things going on instead a crybaby 41 year old winger.

I agree Serenster, it’s actually appalling.

Not that it should even be questioned, but anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention or read the judgement could be under any illusion that the claimants case had any merit. Accusing the judge of bias against them is really disgusting.

I guess, as ever, they’ll just get away with it though.

Indeed.

A perfect example of mis-direction by failing to play the ball in favour of the player because you’re out of other options.

So is anyone actually surprised about Harry and Doreen's bleating statement?

Professionally inappropriate or not I'd expect nothing else, though why Doreen is still choosing to ally herself to him is beyond me. Doesn't she have ANY judgement, or is the rumour that he promised to pay her legal fees true and she's hoping he'll still do it?

If he doesn't - and he won't - I expect we'll be hearing more about this

Sherborne should sue Harry for that insinuation. He won't but it's disgusting

There was evidence that the News of the World and the Mirror hacked!

I am in total agreement with this. Many grieving parents have lost children in similar circumstances and I feel for all of them. I do feel however that being induced to sue on flimsy evidence should make her legal team feel absolutely appalled

Did you mean Sherborne should sue, or the judge?

Didn't someone say Sherborne would have signed off the statement (?) and if so why would he sue?

Apologies if anyone has already posted the actual Paul Dacre video

’Poor Harry’ - PD could not be anymore scathing (and I agree with PD). How stressful for him and all those affected.

I thought DS had aspirations to be a KC? surely it's not a good move to be signing off on a statement that made that claim?
I was always under the impression that DS thought very highly of himself and his credentials. 🤷‍♀️

It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.

Absolutely no surprise. If they lost Harry was always going to blame it on an establishment conspiracy. I hope he doesn't move on to suggesting the RF nobbled the judiciary. But I wouldn't put it past him.

If they thought the judge might be biased, why didn't they move to have him recused from the trial at the very start?

The statement is disgraceful, and I'm not surprised Sir Elton and David Furnish, Sadie F and Liz H haven't put their name to it. Accusing the judge of being corrupt and the journalists lying on the stand. Surely that's actionable?

Oh he will.

It's when, not if.

I can't believe DS allowed that statement to go out. He is a KC already though, because he's a barrister.

You can be a barrister without being a KC.

The Telegraph has done a breakdown of all the times Harry contradicted himself when in the stand. Sadly it’s behind a paywall so can’t see it.

@Passingthrough123

If you look here ( DS's chambers) under barristers , they all have the year they were called to the Bar, and the KCs have the date they became CCs (Silk). Plus the clue in that those who are KCs have it after their name - you can see DS , no silk date no KC after his name.
https://www.5rb.com/barristers/