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

He had plenty people more than looking after him, and he threw them all under a bus. He has the life he deserves.

He is his own worst enemy.

It's so predictable of Harry, he sees the danger in other's word but never his own. To call a judge biased when you know you have a too many vengeful internet warriors is disgraceful. His accountability and empathy is zero.

He referred to those that did as insects.

It's unsurprising people prefer not to buzz.

Its sad to see but I think he needs to learn a very hard lesson in humility and have a taste of his own medicine. He has heaped cruelty and pain on his long suffering family for years and heaped torment on his dying grandparents. He deserves to experience some pain and consequences for once in his revoltingly overprivileged and spoilt existence. If he is unwell he will have access to treatment quickly but he deserves to sit with the shame and humiliation he has brought on himself. I do not feel sorry for him

Agree.

There's a lot of infantilising of Doreen Lawrence on these threads.

She's an adult.

She has previously successfully sued the Metropolitan police, so knows what is required to bring a successful legal case.

She is of sufficient means to instruct her own legal counsel.

She has been party to 2 years of pre-trial hearings where she had every opportunity to decide not to proceed with the case if she didn't want to.

She is now one of two people who have decided to malign publicly a judge who has made a very careful and detailed judgement.

I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for her.

Any guesses on where Meghan is at the moment?

Sorry to sound like a broken record but she will only leave if she receives lots of money and can retain her title .
Meghan never strikes me as being particularly maternal but she would definitely use A and L to secure what she wants .

Has anyone seen or heard any statement from Liz Hurley, Elton John, David Furnish, Simon Hughes or Sadie Frost?

At Laura Wasser's office maybe?

Though she couldn't afford her.

She’ll leave when he’s too embarrassing - he’s getting there.

The Daily Mail is a hideous so-called newspaper, so I will not cheer for their win in court.

Much as I think the Duke of Sussex should have just sulked and said nothing after losing the court case.

On Hinge search for an aging billionaire

She's just as embarrassing in my view.

I know he's brought it on himself. I just feel so sorry for him. He had it all and he's thrown it away.

I agree. You only have to look at the revolving door of Sussex staff to imagine how chaotic it must be.

I don't buy all this "Poor Harry" shtick. He's a grown man in his 40s. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to take out all these ridiculous legal actions he's been so hell bent on. He's now paid for the consequences of his actions and I feel it will be a valuable lesson for him.

The trouble is he doesn't learn from experience.

Oh yes, but she’s not as dumb as he is. She’s had her eyes on the prize from the start. As soon as he ceases to be her useful idiot, she’ll cut him loose then she’ll sell all her stories on him. She’ll try to reinvent herself yet again in her divorce era. All while looking for her next move. Ruthless.

You kind of wish she'd get it over with so maybe he can find some genuine happiness.

He’ll never be happy. He’s too much of a victim in his own mind.

Updating her evidence scrapbook with Hs recent negative comments about how dangerous England is. All quotes will be used against him when they divorce and he wants the kids back in England.

I would imagine their WhatsApp group has gone quite quiet since the verdict!

Obviously we won’t know whether or not Sherborne signed off on the statement. But he was filmed heading into Chatham House, presumably to meet with Harry, after Harry gave his Invictus speech there and before the statement was released. Also, he would be very well aware of Justice Nicklin’s past career at the bar before he became a judge in 2017 - they are/were both barristers at 5RB, a specialist media law set.

Generally I would say it is Harry’s solicitors who are responsible for giving him (and the other claimants) clear advice that their case was unlikely to succeed. Barristers are generally not liable personally for their conduct of litigation whereas solicitors are liable for negligence in their advisory role. But by the same token, I would expect Sherborne as lead counsel to have been advising Harry’s solicitors that their evidence was nowhere near sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Particularly given Justice Nicklin himself pointed this out in the decision on limitation that was heard as a preliminary issue…

And on the reason why its such an unprofessional criticism: the cornerstone of barristers’ ethics is that they provide impartial access to justice - they cannot refuse an instruction from a client providing they have the expertise to run the case. This is known as the “cab rank rule” - in other words they have to accept a client, no matter their personal preferences in the matter. This in turn means barristers are not held personally responsible for their past list of clients, as they are not free to pick and choose. In practical terms, it would be hard to find a leading media law KC who has not acted for publishers as well as individuals. Top barristers regularly act for and against natural claimants and defendants in their sectors.

So the allegation is groundless: if Harry’s legal team really thought they had a decent argument that Justice Nicklin had a conflict of interest they could of course have raised it. But they didn’t - they must have known it was a hopeless and inappropriate complaint. But definitely worth a personal smear when they lost the claim, of course…

(Luckily for them, judges don’t sue. Sherborne’s peers will be raising their eyebrows though - and not for the first time!)

Not a word from any of them as far as I can see,.they will be desperately distancing themselves from this and are probably dreading what comes next in terms of their financial liability. They would be sensible if they stayed silent and did nothing to draw the ire of Judge Nicklin who by now is likely to be seething.

Statement from SImon Hughes:

"The judgment in the case against ANL is naturally very disappointing for me, and I am sure for all other claimants. I shall take time to consider the lengthy judgment in detail and plan to make no further comment in the near future."