Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 5

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fifth 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 were: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF). They were represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) was represented by Anthony White (AMW).

Judgement was handed down by Judge Nicklin on 7th July 2026.
All claims were dismissed.
Links to the summary and full judgement are below.
We are currently awaiting decisions around costs, with the next hearing due on 29-30th July.

The threads to date were thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views.
Following the judgement, we discussed the judgement itself, the reaction, statements made by different parties and ongoing relevant issues.

We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding more general discussion on Royal Family members, which can become partisan, and trying not to be derailed from the main topic of the thread.

We have occasionally 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.

Links to previous threads
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4

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

Summary judgement

Full judgement

Thank you

Thanks for the new thread

Yep i's working; thanks, @bluegreygreen

Beautifully done @bluegreygreen - Thank you 💐

Thank you @bluegreygreen

That use of the Byline article so the claimants could 'realise' and not be out of time was very shonky. Did the judge talk about that in his findings?

Ooh you can watch the hearing to determine costs online if you request the link by 22 July.

When is the costs hearing?

That is quite exciting 😂

I guess there won't be much to talk about for a while, but then it'll all start happening.

29-30 July

Yes - I haven't read it all yet, but it's from paragraph 1537 onwards in the full judgement.

Yes, he did and he criticised Dr Evan Harris the former Lib Dem MP for it particularly, using words like ‘dishonest’ and ‘deception’. This is bad news particularly for Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes.

You may recall the judge warning Simon Hughes about incriminating himself during his evidence.

There was a short piece yesterday in the Mail print version. We need to find the passage from the ruling but I’m a bit swamped with other things at the moment, and my broadband was off yesterday and today for bloody hours at a time thank you bloody BT you bunch of losers.

Thank you!

Please can I ask how to request this?

I tried Google but it’s just throwing up results for SNL instead of ANL 🙄

He talks in more detail about why the SF and SH cases are statute-barred, but the paragraphs where he specifically criticises Evan Harris in that section are here (there may be others):

1565. Drawing these threads together, I find that the Hughes allegation is made good in a limited but material respect. Dr Harris’ email of 11 July 2019 reliably records his appreciation of a limitation difficulty and his proposal that Byline publication should be used to provide a public basis for the claims and to blunt, if not deter, a limitation argument.

1566. For completeness, I make clear the findings I do, and do not, make about the individuals said to have been involved. In Sir Simon Hughes’ case, I am satisfied that Dr Harris appreciated the potential limitation issue and proposed Byline publication as a means of presenting a later public point of knowledge. In that respect, his proposal was not merely clumsy or misguided. It was an improper attempt to blunt a limitation argument by obscuring the earlier availability of the facts relevant to the Miskiw/Anderson Emails. That is the significance of Dr Harris’ statement that Byline stories could be “referred [to] as the basis for claims being raised”, and of his explanation that this would help “deter the Mail from arguing ‘limitation’”.

1567. I am satisfied that, in this limited but important respect, Dr Harris’ proposal was dishonest. It involved proposing that publication in Byline should be used to present a later public point of knowledge as the operative basis for the claim, when the relevant facts had already been available, or were at least capable of being obtained, earlier. At root, that proposal involved a deception. The finding concerns the proposal recorded in his email of 11 July 2019.

The details are here:

Transmission Direction Order

A lot of posters have discussed how the solicitors and barristers took the case on a no win no fee basis. However, I would assume that was dependant on the plaintiffs having evidence and telling the truth. It's possible that DS only realised how weak the case was at discovery e.g. when he saw the CG evidence for PH's claims. If so, he should have pulled out but maybe he thought he was good enough to still win it. This is all speculation on my part but I wonder if there's a chance that the lawyers can claim costs based on plaintiffs lying to them or not having the evidence they were told existed. Maybe not the solicitors but DS?

🎖🏅🏆@bluegreygreen - Your sterling work is appreciated. 💐👏

Evan Harris is also discussed from A2.25 to A2.36. It's very interesting to read Judge Nicklin's thoughts on his evidence in general.

The final paragraph is here:

A2.36. Drawing these matters together, I approach Dr Harris’ evidence with caution. Where his evidence is supported by the contemporaneous documentary record, it may be accepted. However, where it depends upon his asserted recollection or his reconstruction of events, I do not consider it safe to do so. The overall position is that I cannot rely upon Dr Harris’ account unless it is corroborated by contemporaneous documentary material. I do not make a general finding that Dr Harris is a dishonest person, nor do I find that his evidence to the Court was generally dishonest. But that general assessment is subject to the specific finding I make in the main judgment concerning the email of 11 July 2019. In that particular respect, and for the reasons there given, I find that his proposal was improper and dishonest.

Lovely summary.

@Chulainn It does not work like that. DS is a very bright barrister. He’s actually not a KC, but there was a KC working on the claimants team. The idea that hugely experienced media barristers are not capable of questioning their clients thoroughly about their evidence is for the birds. It is their job to know every detail of the claimants case.

Not only that, they prepare the case for court. They construct the legal argument for the claimants and it’s clear the tactic used has come unstuck. Basically - you cannot use probability, feelings, unsubstantiated accusations and annoyance as evidence to win a case. There needs to be proof.

Barristers take high profile cases to advance their careers - this certainly can be for no win, no fee or pro bono for poorer people in very important cases. The idea that DS and the very experienced team were lied to, and did not know, is frankly not remotely a runner. They are the experts and it’s their job to know everything! The detail they go into to construct a case is immense.

It’s not really lies that were the issue either. That’s a bit black and white. It’s a weak argument, lack of evidence and basing a case on feeling “wronged” and asserting ANL must have hacked phones etc when there was no evidence to back up their assertions.

Many thanks 🙏! I missed the last of the other thread! But yes , let’s keep it as separated as we can.

Meghan bringing the children over this week, apparently. For a no-holds-barred appeal to Charles?

Thank you @MeetMeOnTheCorner.