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 @bluegreygreen .

Can’t be anything other than a money-begging opportunity, can it? Hidden microphones and cameras, exploit every second for $$$$
I bet anything there will be photos in due course.
I’m hoping KC strips their titles and she reverts to be Mrs Megain Wails.

Not meaning to be the Thread Police but this needs to be discussed on the other thread.

I know Harry tried to bring Meghan into the court case but it really is nothing to do with her

Thanks for the new thread @bluegreygreen 😊

The financial stuff is interesting. Does anyone think this is the last for case for Harry?

Maybe the last case he will bring, but he has to defend himself against the Sophie Chanduka allegations yet.

👏👏👏 100%

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

This makes perfect sense, @MeetMeOnTheCorner, but it also underlines the fact that, since they'd have gone into everything, they must have known the case was a crock with practically no chance of success

So why bring it all the way to court in the first place? Granted that's what Harry and the rest obviously wanted, but surely barristers can refuse if it's clearly hopeless?

I think it's clear that David Sherborne has been part of the Hacked Off/Hugh Grant campaign for years, if not from the start.

On a previous thread (thread 3 I think) @AnAutumnCrow linked the transcript of the Leveson inquiry, where he was reprimanded for his manner of questioning Paul Dacre, including asking him questions of which he had been given no warning.

He was so successful with the previous phone hacking cases, that I think he simply thought he could do it again.

However, there is a clear legal difference between two media companies that had confessed to phone hacking (and where people - including his investigator! - were jailed) and a company that had consistently denied it.

I think he totally lost sight of that in the desire to bring down ANL in the same way.

Passage in Leveson where Sherborne was censured for his questioning of Dacre:

https://archive.is/fqXNe

5.33pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that this particular dispute has achieved a significance "that maybe rather large than it merits" and that Dacre's statement details extensively his newspaper's relationship with Hugh Grant.
5:51pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that it is unacceptable for Dacre to be questioned on issues on which he has not been pre-notified, but accepts that the issue of Grant and the Mail's "mendacious smears" statement has become "totemic". He adds that it is fair to everybody that it is "resolved rather more carefully" than at present.

I've read very little of the actual judgement so far (other things going on).

One section I have read is the 'Leveson Lies' section [1574]–[1604].

Judge Nicklin is extremely critical of how this was dealt with in court by the claimants (i.e. by Sherborne).
The claimants accused three of the senior ANL people (Paul Dacre, Elizabeth Hartley and Peter Wright of lying to the Leveson board during the Inquiry).

The judge says that this is totally separate to the claims but that he is dealing with it because it is an extremely serious allegation. He points out that in simple fairness, for such an allegation they must put to each person the statement said to be false, the evidence that it is false, and the evidence that the person knew it was false when they said it.
This was not done in court. Except in one case, instead of pointing to specific statements, the claimants (i.e. Sherborne) talked about general criticisms of ANL's response to Leveson.

It's worth reading the whole section for the forensic way Judge Nicklin deals with the issue, but 2 paragraphs from the conclusion of the Leveson section:

1601. Standing back, the allegation of “Leveson Lies” has not been proved. The case as pleaded was that three witnesses knowingly gave false evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. By trial, that case had narrowed and, in some respects, shifted. In relation to Mr Dacre, the central pleaded allegation, including the allegation that he lied about phone hacking, was not squarely put. In relation to Ms Hartley, the relevant paragraph was squarely challenged. I accept that it was too broadly expressed and, with hindsight, should not have been included in that form; but I do not find that she knew it was false or intended to mislead the Inquiry. In relation to Mr Wright, the pleaded passage was not properly put as a lie, and the broader cross-examination did not prove that his Leveson evidence was knowingly false.

1602. In my judgment, the Claimants are open to criticism for the way in which the “Leveson Lies” allegations were pursued. The allegations were extremely serious. Yet, save in relation to the particular paragraph in Ms Hartley’s witness statement, they were not consistently anchored to identified statements which were put to the relevant witness as deliberate falsehoods. In significant respects the case shifted from the pleaded allegation of lies to broader criticisms of Associated’s inquiries, disclosure and corporate response to the Leveson Inquiry. This is not how allegations of this seriousness should be advanced.

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.

Bloody hell. That isn't something I would like to hear said about me in a court judgement.

The entire section is very interesting to read in how it dissects his testimony.

In effect, it talks about Harris creating his own narrative when he reads documents, and that he is unable to discriminate between things he remembers and things he has only read.

Judge Nicklin still distinguishes between that and the incident of deliberate dishonesty around the timing of the Bylines articles.

Ok, so if we’re running with theory that DS and the claimants’ other legal representation knew the case inside out, and therefore that they had no proof or evidence then surely it’s thoroughly immoral for them to have proceeded - in relation to their clients but quite obviously and more importantly in relation to the defendants? Surely this is vexatious in the extreme and they should face sanctions from the law society? I’m quite obviously not a lawyer but people should be protected from allegations that risk ruining their health & lives if there is no evidence? I would argue they have at the very least brought the profession into disrepute?…
edited spag

It's a good question, @Totalmayhem, and I'll be interested to hear what our legal posters think.

As I understand it, lawyers are instructed by clients. Their responsibilities to clients include telling them the strengths and weaknesses of the case they want to bring.
From that perspective, if at some point DS (or the solicitors?) have been clear to the claimants that there is little firm evidence, there should be no problem.

The other aspect is that the judge has the option of throwing a case out for lack of evidence. I think ANL asked Judge Nicklin to do this in one of the pre-trial hearings. He didn't do this - possibly because he felt that this was a serious matter that should be dealt with once for all? Possibly because he felt there was sufficient evidence for a case to be brought? (I haven't read that judgement - someone may have more details).

As I understand it, lawyers are instructed by clients. Their responsibilities to clients include telling them the strengths and weaknesses of the case they want to bring.
From that perspective, if at some point DS (or the solicitors?) have been clear to the claimants that there is little firm evidence, there should be no problem.

I very much suspect that once they had seen the evidence from ANL - the emails, the Facebook posts, the evidence of taking their source from publically available information provided by PRs - the lawyers DID tell the claimants that they had a very weak case, and that that was behind the rush by the claimants to achieve an out of court settlement in December. But as ANL refused to concede they had a choice. Drop the allegations - which would have been a total victory for ANL and the claimants would have been slinking off with their tails between their legs - or proceed to court and hope that they got a sympathetic hearing. Unfortunately for them, Judge Nicklin was forensic in his analysis of the (lack of) evidence. And he saw through the agggressive nature of Sherborne's questioning, hoping that weight and passion of argument would outweigh the lack of anything like a solid case.

I very much suspect that once they had seen the evidence from ANL - the emails, the Facebook posts, the evidence of taking their source from publically available information provided by PRs - the lawyers DID tell the claimants that they had a very weak case, and that that was behind the rush by the claimants to achieve an out of court settlement in December.

Will they have seen the evidence from ANL for the first time in December, and not during the 2 years of pre-trial hearings?

ETA By which I mean, is disclosure of each side's evidence one of the later things to happen? I remember we heard about the Gavin Burrows issue in November.

🍿 I am so ready for that one. SC will have that buttoned down tight as her specialty in law is risk assessment.
She is going to hand him his arse. It will be illuminating for IG as she explains his involvement in the money and trying to divert donations to his personal charity, which he keeps 95% of. I expect she will itemize his expenses. That is going to be a shock to anyone who thinks he does good! It's already being assumed h is flying 1st class all over the world in 5 star hotels on IG donations.
ANL appears to be the domino to start his downfall. All the people he has wronged are going to be lining up to kick him on the way down.

That allegation that he tried to divert donations to Sentebale through Archewell so that 95% of the money would be available to him personally is absolutely mind blowing. And yet completely believable.

What I really don't understand is why an experienced barrister would agree to take the case on a "no win, no fee" basis when the evidence was so weak.

They knew Gavin burrows refuted the statement in 2023. He gave a statement to ANL that it was fraudulent, not his words and not his signature. Sherbet knew as did anyone reading the news back then. Nicklin made several comments about the female solicitor breaching evidence standards and yet they decided to bulldoze on without their only piece of evidence.
I do not believe any solicitor or barrister works for free for 8 years. No win no fee contracts are very clear that if you haven't been 100% honest you will get a bill. I know people it has happened to, didn't read the small print. Also nwnf is usually slam dunk cases where loser pays solicitor costs. This was not a strong case. However the solicitors bent themselves double to to manufacture evidence so if they don't get paid it will be a valuable lesson.

Would anyone be interested in a separate Sentebale legal case thread, nearer when the time comes for court developments?

As @noonames says, 'That allegation that he tried to divert donations to Sentebale through Archewell so that 95% of the money would be available to him personally is absolutely mind blowing. And yet completely believable.' This case could potentially be huge. The legalities will be complex and so will the judgement(s).

I think this excellent thread is run as a standalone by @bluegreygreen very effectively, and is a model for running specific and detailed legal topic threads separately from the long-running (and excellent) Sussex PR threads.

It’s a yes from me @AnAutumnCrow, this thread has been so interesting and remained on point pretty much throughout.

I think we’ll definitely need a separate thread for Sentebale, I expect many talking points to emerge once SC starts producing her receipts 😬🍿

They knew Gavin burrows refuted the statement in 2023. He gave a statement to ANL that it was fraudulent, not his words and not his signature.

You would not believe this to be possible unless you saw it played out in real time.

And yes to the Senteble thread please.