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

Based on the evidence that was reported from the court and discussed here over the threads, I don't see how the claimants can win.

I am very aware that we were hearing things at a distance, and not getting all the picture.
Having said that, there was never any report of a definite evidential link from the DM to UIG, and I think it would have been reported (widely) if there had been.

There was never any report of a definite evidential link from the DM to UIG, and I think it would have been reported (widely) if there had been

That's what keeps coming back to me, @bluegreygreen, along with the judge's remark that they're almost reversing the burden of evidence - perhaps because they hadn't got any of their own to offer?

We're told that civil cases rest on the balance of probabilities, which isn't the cold hard proof than a criminal trial requires, but whether that would be enough to swing it for the claimants I couldn't say

Luckily judges hand down commentaries on how decisions were reached, and though quite a read at least they'll be definitive in answering a lot of our questions

Edited to add I've only just twigged it was also Justice Nicklin who presided over the case where Harry withdrew from suing the Mail before ... though this latest one is a different case of course

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67658512

I’ve a feeling we’re going to be thrown a curve ball, and on balance of probability it might land in Harry’s favour.
no rationale for that but he’s defeated the odds in previous legal cases.
I’ll be watching and waiting tomorrow, but I’ve a feeling we’ll be disappointed.

I agree. The Judge said on more than one occasion that Sherborne was coming ‘perilously close’ to reversing the burden of proof. I remember Sherborne trying to use the stolen watch scenario to do attempt to do exactly that. Nicklin said he did not find that helpful. I feel a great deal can be garnered from thst statement

If there is evidence of illegal activity then it won't be disappointing for me if Harry wins. But if there is evidence then it must be in the stuff that wasn't reported on because i can't remember any being discussed in court.

I am looking after grandchildren again tomorrow . Might send them to the park with DH .

Yes, I'm looking forward to reading the discussion, @Puzzledandpissedoff.

I had known the previous case as Nicklin, but had forgotten.

I’ll be watching and waiting tomorrow, but I’ve a feeling we’ll be disappointed.
As long as the case is clearly judged on the evidence, I am happy with the outcome.
I will be particularly happy if the judge makes a formal comment on the importance of press freedom.

It was mentioned earlier about Harry perhaps making a victory speech if he won even just one or two of the cases he brought (out of 14 or so???).
Any predictions as to which of the 14 are most likely for him to maybe win?

I can't think of any of them that sounded like he actually had evidence of UIG.

I have a feeling it will go Harry’s way. He’s preparing to deliver a victory speech so I think he’s been told so 🤷🏻‍♀️

My opinion before tomorrow and of course I may well be totally incorrect, is that Harry and the majority (if not all claimants) are going to be unsuccessful. My opinion is based on comments made by Judge Nicklin and his obvious annoyances at Sherborne. It is very much in the public domain that Nicklin said that without Burrows there is no evidence and that the majority of claims could not be sustained. This is extremely telling. Furthermore, the dynamics in Court highlighted that the claimants were desperate, that there was Operation Bluebird, the fact that claimants probably knew years ago there was a potential claim and the fact that as certain journalist or crusader was planting stories to get around the limitation act. I am no fan of the DM but I am also a stickler for due process and law. Conviction should only ever be brought with concrete evidence and facts. Not liking an entity is not reason enough to condemn them - not when it comes to law.

Someone upthread had the understanding that the lawyers had been informed of the judgement, but not the parties concerned (Serenster had previously explained this can sometimes happen).

We, the general public, are only speculating until tomorrow.

Yay - apparently I don't need to go out tomorrow until about 4 pm, so I should be here for the judgement and your reactions 😀

I am no fan of the DM but I am also a stickler for due process and law. Conviction should only ever be brought with concrete evidence and facts. Not liking an entity is not reason enough to condemn them - not when it comes to law

Beautifully put, @AgileRobin

Harry might be a hideous personality but he's still entitled to his day in court - though not to have things automatically go his way, which is where the problems often crop up

Anyway we'll see ...

Where was it printed that Harry was going to do a victory speech?

(Although I do agree with a pp either on here or on the PR thread that said wanting BP may only have been so he could do an interview outside it- then whichever way the case went be would have better optics.

I have never thanked you for such an amazing thread. I have personally never felt confident posting in forums because I am always constantly worried in case I am bullied. Silly I know! I guess my point is this; thank you for making me feel welcome and thank you for the respectful nature of it - to each and every single poster, you have unleashed something; courage and respect which is amazing and a real testament to each of you. Thank you for giving me my confidence back!

I think all the posters here share a respect for and an interest in the law.
Reading the accounts of the case it seemed there was nothing reported that could not have been obtained through friends or even the person's own statements at the time.

I think it was from a 'source'. But realistically the RAVEC case showed that Harry expects to win every thing so his sources aren't likely to know more than the rest of us.

That was what made this case so fascinating to follow. Pretty much everyone said in the stand that their friends don't leak as if that was evidence, completely disregarding that they may be wrong and also that they live their lives surrounded by other people who might pass on information.

Harry has shown us this week, that he himself leaks like a sieve, so pot kettle.

In the torygraph, something about winning one of fourteen and he'll make a speech.

Certainly could constitute a leaklet but till tomorrow who knows. I think one of the articles, the plane seats one, was pretty clearly murkily sourced so could be that.

My money is is on some minor victory like that in an otherwise clean sweep for ANL. Costs will be interesting if that's the case!

I think all the posters here share a respect for and an interest in the law.

That's what has made it such a good series of threads @StartupRepair.

I started the first thread when I read an article (I think in Nov 2025) reporting the pretrial hearing where they discussed Burrows' evidence - it was reported that he said his first statement was a forgery. The claimants didn't want to call him as a witness but still wanted to use his evidence as 'hearsay evidence', and I was trying to understand how this could work.

We've had lots of discussion since then and I've learnt a lot and have appreciated everyone's contributions, especially when the threads were busy during the court days.

I've also been very grateful for posters keeping this thread to the topic of the case as much as possible, and away from the more partisan discussions that occur on other threads.

I hope we have a good day tomorrow!

I hope Hugh Grant’s role in manipulating the situation will be exposed, freedom of the press is so important.

Either way Harry will tell us he’s won.

I couldn’t agree more.

PH will def tell us he has won.

Do we expect a backlash from DM ? Releasing dirt that they have sat on?

I’m very interested to see the outcome of this for Doreen Lawrence and Simon Hughes. I think they were both foolish to get involved with this litigation, given they are considered to be of a high enough calibre to be parliamentarians and lawmakers (present and past).

But they may yet be vindicated. I didn’t see all the written statements and submissions, so I may know very little despite following the court hearing as best I could.

It’s the judge’s reasonings and legal justifications for his rulings that will be fascinating to read, but it’ll take a while!