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

Prince Harry specifically chose Sherborne

I think I'm righting in saying people can ask for specific barristers or the clerks can put specific cases through first to certain barristers. Never been a barrister nor a chambers' clerk , but I don't think Serenster was meaning you take the next job off the ticket like queuing up at a pharmacy.

Agreed!

And yet he expects a verdict in his favor without evidence.

As pleased as I as that Harry has been roundly told No, I can’t forgive the DM for Brexit. So won’t be buying the paper. So all those buying it. Any extra juicy details please, do feel free to share. 😁

Harry has behaved exactly how I thought he would. That statement so ill advised. Like a toddler.

Ill read all the links later. Back to try to sleep!

Yes, I agree. For the PP asking why the Mail is so reviled, they publish a lot of pretty awful xenophobic content. There’s also racist stories, benefit-bashing and everyday misogynism too. They spouted absolute shit during Brexit with no care about whether it was truthful.

That doesn’t mean that they’re not capable of great journalism - and clearly some of their reporters have been phenomenal over the years (specifically the one who campaigned for the killers of Stephen Lawrence to be caught).

I think it’s possible to acknowledge they sometime produce groundbreaking investigative reports while simultaneously not being comfortable with their general shtick of whipping up the masses.

The misogynistic articles are off the scale unpleasant. It's stirring up hatred and division constantly in general too.

It was Richard Eden he referred to as being Diana's friend. Which was totally true.
Richard Eden was/is the Royal Correspondent for the Daily Mail.

I agree about The Mail. I think where this case went wrong was in the conviction amongst the celebrities and Hacked Off that not liking what a paper is printing means that they are doing something illegal. I don't like a lot of what The Mail prints but there is no evidence they have acted illegally in their information gathering.

I do not worry about PH's mental health nor about his financial situation - like most of us, I have stuff a lot closer to home to be concerned about. I've followed this thread with interest and have learned a lot about our legal system (thank you for sharing some of the nuts and bolts) and have been most impressed at how dignified and relevant all the posters have been. No derailing, no 'hate and vitriol', just measured and thoughtful contributions and queries. Thank you everybody! 👏👏👏

Also, of course he doesn't "look well". I looked much the same when I realised I was late with a payment and owed thousands of pounds.
It doesn't mean he is ILL. All these people hand wringing that a man's mistakes eventually shows on his face.

Perhaps it's beginning to dawn on him that he's lost his family and will never be back in the fold.

The DM royal editor to whom dacre was referring was Richard Kay. The previous Richard. They had been proper friends - he was a longstanding confidant of hers.

Haven’t had time to read all the thread (let alone 450+ pages of judgement) - Wimbledon!

So sorry if it’s been mentioned and I missed it but did the judge make any comments re: Harry’s close relationship with Charlotte G-string as revealed in their messages?

Can you please DM me a few. I’m conscious I am becoming a fan (so need balance) but accept that’s only going on my guy who was such a gentleman and Paul Dacre who I am told is a gentleman - and I think comes across as one. I thought PD’s video response was quite elegant in the circumstances.

My husband and me have read the Mailonline since it became free - but we always check their stories on other sites too.

I suppose that living in a liberal democracy, we have to understand that there will be publications we disagree with, and viewpoints different to our own. I think too many people live in echo chambers.
Harry's problem wasn't so much that they violated his privacy - he's been doing that to his own family for years - but that they are critical of him.
That's what Harry and his fans can't stand.

'Harry's problem wasn't so much that they violated his privacy - he's been doing that to his own family for years - but that they are critical of him.That's what Harry and his fans can't stand'

This with bells on.

Oh very good…!

Interesting article today. I did not know Doreen Lawrence had Stephen’s body exhumed after 30 years

www.dailymail.com/news/article-15960327/Stephen-Lawrence-father-breaks-silence-moving.html

As an earlier poster said, it was Richard Kay a daily mail royal reporter who was Diana's confidant and friend (tho i dont think he has betrayed any confidences of hers).
And he was one of the last people Diana called from Paris the evening before she died, though he has never revealed the conversation.

On another note. If a person in the public eye goes to a party (eg, Mosley with sado masochism, or Harry dressed as a nazi, or playing strip poker, etc), if there are other people present, which being a party means there are, is this a private occasion and newspapers should never mention it, or is it something that newspapers, given photos by others, etc, are free to publish?

Do we think PH will return to UK (or stay here) for the costs court hearing at the end of the month? Is his attendance required or is it an admin number crunching process between the legal teams and judge rather than claimants?

Do we know how the costs will be shared - did the group agree this at the start?

The ‘group’ looks very fractured now:

Simon Hughs solo statement - humble / simple

PH & DL (folie a deux?) blistering reactive narcissistic rage

All the rest ‘crickets’

Do we think DS will issue a statement - or has that (crazy) horse already bolted with PH & DL?

Do we think PH will carry out his 4 public engagements (Chelsea Hosp, Well Child, Scotties Little Soldiers, IG)?

Sorry for not appreciating the legal precision of your wording 😀

The cab rank rule means that as long as you are available, professionally competent to deliver the case, and are being suitably paid for the work (as per your level of call) then you have no reason to decline a case. Clerks in Chambers will allocate the work that comes in, and where a client requests a specific barrister you will do your best to accommodate that if the work warrants it.

So, as an example, you could find a very senior barrister of 20 years experience, conducting a short 10 minute application on a minor matter, because they have been requested, it's in their specialism, and the client is willing to throw the necessary funds at securing who they want.

The main reason for NOT accepting work as a barrister would be if you are conflicted, otherwise most instructing solicitors are pretty good at knowing their local circuit and instructing the right people.

Really the rule is there to prevent cherry picking and to make sure that there is access to justice.

(I have experience in chambers btw, I am not just opining here)

I think that’s “my truth” versus “the truth” in action. He thinks that if his selected, curated version of events is what he now says happened, that’s what happened…despite his own written evidence to the contrary!

It’s difficult for normal people to understand how he can say that evidence that proves his statement false and gives victory to the other side, is “irrelevant”. It’s crucially, determinatively relevant, just to other people. Is it royal hubris? Does he think the other people don’t matter and are irrelevant to his aim of getting what he wants from this court case? Or is he just not understanding how being a witness works, what evidence is, what a court of law is for, how the whole thing works?

I don’t think PH will be anywhere near the hearing at the end of the month. It’s been such a humiliating defeat, I think he’ll want to distance himself entirely.

plus I think it will be very much a lawyers battle - I’d be surprised if any of the celebs turn up to it.