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

Yep. When Harry approached her she could (and maybe did) get on the phone immediately to any number of her acquaintances in the HoL and got expert legal advice. They would likely have told her to keep well away from this crock. Maybe they did just that.

I wonder if it was sheer greed that motivated her to get involved? Along with assurances that she would not be out of pocket no matter how the judge ruled? After all, suffering a great tragedy and carrying out worthwhile campaigning does not make her a saint.

And no excuse for that slanderous statement. None whatsoever.

IF PH did offer to pay DL fees & she didn't lock that down water-tight she's been foolish in the extreme.

Exactly! , we all know why she was recruited for this case! , we have even heard emails stating the reasons, whether DL was aware she was being used to make the others look more sympathetic to the public or not , she’s hardly some little woman who doesn’t know about court cases .

I wonder if it was sheer greed that motivated her to get involved? Along with assurances that she would not be out of pocket no matter how the judge ruled?

We'll never know for sure, @IcedPurple, but on this subject it occurs to me that she might have more in common with Harry than we've perhaps thought - as in taking the plaudits when things are going their way and lashing out spitefully when they're not

And as you say, suffering an awful tragedy and campaigning doesn't make her a saint, but try telling that to those determined to regard her as such

I agree. Harry is a typical 'bloke'. Happy with eating take away pizza, lolling about on a shabby sofa playing video games and having three changes of clothes from TK Maxx.

Meghan is a whole other story. She wants custom couture, a luxury home, private jets, celebrity parties. That all costs though, and while I agree she's more financially literate than Harry (who isn't?) she's not that savvy either. 'As Ever' is probably losing money. She (and Harry) didn't put in the work to keep their lucrative media contracts. I doubt anyone will want to work with them now, given the drama they bring to everything.

Hard to see where money is going to come from in the future, other than investments and inheritances. Which will likely be more than enough to fund a very comfortable lifestyle, but not the A list California life Meghan aspires to.

Nobody gets awarded a peerage unless they know exactly how the system works. She's not naive

We all know why she was recruited for this case!, we have even heard emails stating the reasons

Hang on, @jeffgoldblum, somehow the bit about the emails has passed me by
... any chance you could point to where I can find these please?

Reading the DM interview with Stephen's father, Neville and this part really stood out for me, And so, three days after Harry's explosive email, Lady Lawrence met barrister David Sherborne, self-styled scourge of the Press, and his disarmingly glamorous sidekick Anjlee Sangani. Lady Lawrence listened to the lawyers' litany of damning allegations, her sense of betrayal must have been overwhelming. Without producing any documentary evidence, nor even disclosing names, they told her how the Mail, while purporting to be her staunchest ally, had bugged her home and even the cafe where she met confidantes.

How on earth could Harry or anyone else have found out that the Daily Mail bugged a cafe and how were the DM able to pull that off without anyone noticing or being certain that DL would sit at the same table every, single time she visited. Reads to me like someone had seen too many episodes of Spooks.

If that was the case surely they wouldn't need insurance, they expected to win so thought ANL would be paying him. The court said the costs were already outside what the insurance would cover before they even got in the court. I don't believe for a minute sherborn would work for free no matter how high profile. He would be massively out of pocket for 4 years work.

I know I'm not jeffgoldblum and this might not be exactly what they meant, but this was also in the interview I just mentioned, Using her (Doreen Lawrence) closely guarded private email address, the prince sent her a message, urging her to meet his lawyers because they had uncovered information about her.

On one of the previous threads discussing the case ( maybe @bluegreygreencan help ?) , an email was shown about getting a sympathetic client! , I can’t recall the exact wording but it made reference to preference of someone with a dead child!
I also can’t remember now which of the people pushing the case wrote it!
however it stuck with me because it was stated so boldly.

I'm not giving a view on what ought to be done, and don't know much about how costs in these matters work. However, if it's possible, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mail go easier on Doreen Lawrence because it's a PR win. Say something like, in view of this paper's long association with the family and the campaign for justice, and hurt as we were, we have decided to go easy on her specifically. We do not wish to ruin a woman whose son was brutally murdered in a disgusting racist attack. Harry, however... etc.

But I don't know to what extent that's actually possible.

Anjlee Sangani also represented Hugh Grant. Just saying.

But it's the judge who decides the costs, not the defendant.

And after she slandered him in a public statement, I'm not sure Justice Nicklin will be too inclined to fall for the 'poor Baroness Lawrence' line.

I know, but it's the Mail who'll ask for what they want. You're not obliged to apply for your costs. I don't know whether the process allows for them to be that specific though.

It might have been me!

Email from Evan Harris to Hugh Grant

Oh yes ! Thankyou @GwendolineFairfax8! , that was it! , they obviously didn’t manage to manufacture convincing evidence to get the others involved!

I dunno.

ANL were very specific yesterday when they said they intend to pursue all costs, perhaps even going for an indemnity payment. And Paul Dacre specifically referred to his disappointment with Baroness Lawrence in his statement.

That said, a few million quid is spare change to them, so they may think the PR value of 'showing mercy' to DL is worth it to them.

Evan Harris and Hugh Grant sent emails to each other when they were trying to recruit people to front the campaign against the DM.

One of Evan Harris' emails talked about Gary Lineker being a potential but 'I am sorry he has no dead children':

Dr Harris said Mr Grant, a long-term supporter of Hacked Off, had wanted to highlight cases of alleged Press misconduct that did not involve celebrities like himself.
He was keen to find ‘ordinary victims’ like the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose phone was hacked by the now-defunct tabloid The News of the World.
In his email to Mr Grant, Dr Harris wrote he had been ‘contacting victims to persuade them to instruct lawyers to sue the a* off the Mail’.
He said: ‘We have so far got Heather Mills, Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost in the frame.’
Dr Harris wrote he had ‘a potential Gary Lineker angle, adding: ‘I am sorry he has no dead children but at least he is a national treasure.’

Archive link to story https://archive.ph/VDjFe

Ah, @GwendolineFairfax8 got there first 😊

There were e-mail circulated between Hacked Off's team about recruiting a very sympathetic "national treasure" figure to increase sympathy for the case

Garry Lineker was mooted - but a very crass reply from hacked off said something along the lines of "Nah - it's not like he has a dead child"

.... then suddenly Harry was recruiting DL

Many thanks to you @bluegreygreen!

The Heather Mills involvement makes me laugh - I always suggest on here that she is similar in delusional personality and as much a family and ruthless relationship disrupter as Meghan Markle. They have a lot in common!

At least you both proved my memory isn’t as dodgy as I was suddenly worried it was!!

Even Heather had the good sense to stay far away from this case - as did several other celebrities the claimants approached