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

No @jeffgoldblum, your memory is fine 😊

There's a lot of information in these threads!

Honestly it stuck out to me at the time, because it was so very crass and exploitive! , I can’t understand why more wasn’t made of it .

To remind everyone about this image of Hugh Grant with Glenn Mulcaire.

Knowing everything I do about the News of the World case, I still cannot understand why HG would cosy up to GM - even for his own agenda when he always said he was campaigning for the ‘real’ victims.

Glenn Mulcaire admitted to illegally intercepting the voicemail of Milly Dowler as part of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. He was charged with conspiracy to intercept her voicemail and pleaded guilty during the wider phone-hacking prosecutions.

Many thanks, @jeffgoldblum, @GwendolineFairfax8, @lunde and @bluegreygreen - and yes, now I see the context again the thing about the emails is slowly coming back to me from other threads

Appalling, all of it, not least because if they'd had a decent case there'd have been no need to care about the public image of the claimants
Only it turned out they'd got no case at all, and I have to wonder how much of this they realised - hence perhaps the drive to find sympathetic figures

😡

They clearly and coldly selected and went after clients for their own reasons!
Harry for high visibility.
D Lawrence for public sympathy.

Because it was against the Mail - and as you can see, even in this thread, people have an ongoing bias against the Mail.

Had it been a plot against the Guardian, we'd have been talking about it for months.

Someone mentioned Gary Lineker. Whatever you think of him, he is intelligent and has a very successful media career. No way he'd get involved in this mess. Interesting that other than Elton and Harry they could only recruit C list has-beens like Saide Frost and Liz Hurley. Both of them probably hoping for a big pay out. But it hasn't quite gone their way, has it?

Doesn’t Mulcaire now claim to be poacher turned gamekeeper?

That is not how it works, and that is not how the HoL and peers work either.

If you had friends who are lawyers, or clinical consultants, or other regulated professions, you would know that they are and have to be scrupulous about giving advice, even informally- so many don’t. It may not be their expertise, they would not know enough about the case etc. and any indemnity issues could be difficult too. I wouldn’t want to put friends or colleagues in that position anyway. Furthermore, it could also affect any role they held as a peer and expectations around that.

I don’t know if perhaps you are confused about Law Lords, they stopped sitting in HoL in 2009 when the Supreme Court was created which is where they now sit (a good move, the separation of judiciary and the executive). There are lawyers in HoL sure, but not how I think you are imagining it. DL categorically does not have ‘unlimited resources’ as you said.

I don’t necessarily mean us on here , as I recall we were all disgusted! , I mean publicly, in the media, although as you said it’s probably an anti Mail bias.
i don’t feel like that because I get all my news through Apple News , so I get the whole variety! Honestly I find they are all pretty much the same these days! 🤷‍♀️

Telegraph on the implication for Leveson 2

https://archive.ph/ijZw7

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

So they did to DL what Martin Bashir did to PH's mother, Diana.

Excellent point.

Don't forget she was also complicit in trying to destroy a fellow HOL who had the audacity to write columns for newspapers occasionally and had her name dragged through the mud in this case. Frankly she should be removed from hol for her part in the ANL case, without whom she would not be a lord.
Sorry rant over.

Apparently PH and pals tried to settle just before the case went to court and ANL said no.

Well, it was PH and pals who brought the case; they could have withdrawn.

Only because what became his high profile poaching work dried up in prison

@jeffgoldblum They didn’t have convincing evidence to persuade the judge either. No wonder Harry wants to see Papa! Who has the money for ANLs costs?

It’s an interesting concept that people want their day in court regardless of any advice. My DD is a barrister and has clients who are not going to
listen when told they have a weak case. Harry just has his own sense of injustice but I wonder who will now pay?

They wanted a pay out. Clearly ANL realised that claimants didn’t have much of a case.

Not even remotely similar. There were no ‘real allegations’ that held up to scrutiny. Bashir forged bank statements to deceive Diana she was being spied on. She was only 34 and feeling like she could trust no one. He was the BBC!

2023 - the year that Burrows discovered a statement that was not signed by him was entered in a messy civil case. The very same year he contacted ANL. The claimants knew this in 2023 yet they proceeded with this knowledge and played games (not them necessarily but their lawyers and the research team) to the very end. Without his 2025 statement - the real statement, the verdict may have been very different

Yes, quite right. My error.

When it hits the fan

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002yl2w?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Charlotte Griffiths going hard in the mail. She was the one HAM tipped off about the Meredith Maines meeting

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15941757/charlotte-griffiths-prince-harry.html