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

A fit and proper response Simon

@Serenster so judges can sue over personal matters but not cases they were presiding over?

I do feel a little for Harry, just that he needs to be able to draw a line underneath the past for his own MH, but doesn't seem able to.

I think it's more likely that they got wind he was planning to hold a press conference within BP

Making the local locksmith a cup of tea with flowers sprinkles?

Thank you @Serenster, that's interesting. I didn't know about the 'cab rank rule'.

So barristers can specialise in an area of law (such as media, for example), but when cases come in to their chambers they must take them in order?
I suppose they will build up relationships with solicitors over time as well, and are likely to have cases referred to them in that way.

You say the judge wouldn't sue - would there be any case for contempt of court or would that not apply because the case is now over?

Yes, a judge could sue about something that happened in their personal life (an issue with poor investment advice or if they buy a duff car or something like that) but about their professional reputation? No, they just wouldn’t. The brickbats are part of the public service role.

I saw this today and was quite surprised to see Doreen Lawrence was among them because I thought the Daily Mail campaigned quite hard to bring her son's killers to justice?

There is really very little in the media about the case. I'm not sure that is purely because of the Farage circus. There seems to be an air of boredom around the reporting.

@MrsLeonFarrell the public seems to have switched off from all newspapers reporting drama

I noticed that too. All the others with a similar length of service are KCs.

I think the majority of the public lost interest a while ago.

Yes - if you look at the profiles of other barristers at Sherborne’s chambers (5RB) you will see this. To take one random example - Justin Rushbrooke KC his blurb states:

Justin’s claimant clients have included many well-known companies and figures from the worlds of entertainment, business, banking and finance, the media, sport and politics, some of whose identities are confidential. On the defendant side, before taking Silk he acted as a junior for most of the major UK newspaper publishers, and has more recently advised or represented publishers of all kinds including politicians, journalists, podcasters and bloggers as well as major US-based tech and media companies.

Solicitors are more constrained in that they owe strict duties of loyalty to individual clients, and so generally will specialise in acting for say banks/insurers/media companies etc and then won’t be able to act for someone who wants to sue one of heir roster of clients.

As for whether this is contempt of court - technically, probably yes. But Harry is the King’s son. Nothing will happen.

Their Australian tour sealed it - no one cares, even the haters have moved on. They’re as good as invisible now

@CathyorClaire "I made this point to an entirely disinterested dh" re H's statement. I too have a DH disinterested in H. When I told him about H , Dh just said , "well , it seems H is very entitled , but also not very bright , and that's not a good combination. " At which point he went back to the tennis.

Her ex husband just stated that he could not understand why she brought this action and that he has always been supported by the DM. He was flabbergasted.

BTW please can we try to keep general Sussex issues to other threads, as we've managed to do so far for the court case threads?

It has meant that these threads have been good for general discussion of issues raised by the case/claimants.

Thanks, all.

Well, my sympathy is muted.
He has bullied his way around the world anywhere he has had power.
Now the bully is losing his power base.
He can retreat and learn the lessons, modifies his behaviour.
Or keep going until he hits rock bottom and seeks help.

Well, there's some rather dramatic tennis going on just now, which is taking some of us away from Harry.

Thanks @Serenster - I appreciate the explanation, as always.

I think Hacked Off and the Research Team (if you can call it that) need to be properly investigated. Saghani should be struck off - she knew better and was too busy fraternising with her Celebrity clients to properly fulfil her duties as a Solicitor. Her lies that she felt uncomfortable with Burrows are just that - complete lies. On each of the meetings she had with him, he was accompanied by his wife!

Agree.

She's a professional. If she did feel uncomfortable, it was her responsibility to do something to change that: change the venue, take someone else with her, arrange for someone else qualified to carry out the tasks.

The answer was not to abdicate the responsibility.

ETA I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios when solicitors can feel uncomfortable - and I suspect there is official guidance for them.

I don't know what Neville Lawrence would be flabbergasted about, AgileRobin, unless it's the extent of the wipeout. This has been going on since 2022 and it's hardly as if he didn't know his ex was involved in the case, so presumably he's had chance to come to terms with her lack of judgement by now?

They're not being modest. Not a fan but I can't blame them for gloating.

And you just know they deliberately chose a really unflattering photo. Not that that's hard these days.

"Special historic edition" 😎

I agree, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

No, his mental state is probably not very good, but he has brought all of this - all of it - on himself.

And what care has he given for all the hurt, humiliation and harassment that his own actions have caused to countless other people? From the MIGS, to his own family, to even now the poor judge who was just doing his job.

He’s a horrible person, and my sympathy is reserved for his innocent victims.

The Times have a bunch of articles. I enjoyed this one from a legal perspective.

Will Prince Harry’s privacy case be the last of its kind?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/79b7d868-f2af-422f-9d15-5fc6fb0f4222?shareToken=3724ea06aa61c620305c4dad41ebba50

I don’t think I can paste multiple articles, but perhaps other subscribers can add.