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

Wrong thread ! , but please do scan these threads for posts on here from me that mention any of these things! 🙄
derailing and I won’t be encouraging you by any further replies.

I found this article (written a couple of days ago) when I was looking to see if there was any update on the Andy Burnham / Hugh Grant collaboration:

https://archive.is/v9uig

(I don't know anything about Spiked - just found the article interesting.)

Interesting blue ! , I don’t know about spiked either, however I found that article rather troubling to say the least! , I’m clinging to the hope that what an mp hopes for and puts forward, is different to what a prime minister can get away with! 🤔

I agree.

I'm very much hoping that the ANL case will have been enough to focus the minds of MPs who were neutral or vaguely positive towards the idea of Leveson 2.

I sincerely hope so , we don’t want rich celebrities being able to control what our press can print! , touching briefly on AMW , it seems incredible that some posters do not realise that without a free press , we would not know anything about Epstein or his subsequent behaviour! 🤷‍♀️

exactly

Just saw this on X.

If you think they were bad in thec1990s, thank yourblucky stars that younweren't dating Prince Charles in the 1960s and 1970s. My parents read the Daily Mirror, and News of the World and Sunday People on a Sunday, and they used to published the vilest slurs against any woman he dated, with a few exceptions.

Yet.

I agree.

It is the new script - the UK press is bad and DM the baddest.

In response to H's humiliating defeat, or in preparation for stories to come now the DM has this victory behind them?

ETA please take this post, not as encouraging or prolonging the derail, but as an attempt to get back on track, since the CG pill incident may have legs.

And wasn't it the DM that first published that pic of AMW and Victoria Guiffre?

Yes it was!

Agreed. I won’t be indulging it either.

Quite surprising anyone might believe someone with a provenly poor track record with truth.

I’d believe that if there were some supporting evidence.

It’s a bit like the ‘Harry went in first’ Highgrove rumours, which seemed to surface on social media first.

Where do such rumours originate, and who benefits? If they are circulated and then shown not to be true, who benefits? Who gets to be the victim(s)? I’m so cynical these days.

As opposed to People magazine?

These are Dark Arts.

'French courts for example traditionally hold that celebrity gossip, extramarital affairs, and family vacation photos'

• I agree about this but in the UK I did think images of celebrities' children were protected , on holiday or not. I agree overall though.

I do think the French often have a healthier attitude to famous actors etc than say, Americans, do , but there are multiple reasons for this.

I thought though in the 1990s that French parapazzi were known for being very tenacious, and several chasing Diana the night she died were French. So did those standards only apply to French figures? Didn't French press intrusively photograph William & Kate, too?

Sorry I see it's been addressed! I'm still somewhat curious though..

I think so. If so that WAS an excellent action.

The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent and the i do counterbalance that though. Then there's the Daily Mirror on the tabloid front, & the Financial Times as a centre right option.

The Times is pretty balanced on a lot of issues, imo.

'That is no longer the case, and the fact that the two examples of intrusion on the Cambridge/Wales family came from the French media shows that clearly.'

• to be fair, while the French paparazzi behaved abominably at Diana's death, the UK press back then did treat her badly during her life, although she did also court them sometimes which complicated things. I agree it has changed since though.

None of my posts referenced Diana.

There certainly was a problem in the UK, as elsewhere, with paparazzi behaviour in the 1990s-2000s, as my post clearly said (and indeed earlier, as a poster upthread reminded us).

My point was that the media landscape has changed significantly since then, and there is no longer a significant issue with paparazzi in the UK.
The two examples I used were of photographs published in French magazines which would never be published by UK editors.

As we seem to have returned to the derail, it may be worth mentioning that I discovered this afternoon that the French press regulatory system is slightly different to the UK one, in that there is no equivalent to the UK Editors' Code of Practice.
There is a journalists' code of conduct (similar to that of the NUJ here), but rather than a national editors' code each media organisation has its own editorial guidelines.
This may be one reason why attitudes are different to prevention and redress.

DM article today about the trial of the brothers who fought with police officers at Manchester airport and the ways that their legal team tried to get the case dismissed and the hugh legal bill funded by legal aid. Their lawyer was Imran Kahn KC (Doreen Lawrence’s solicitor friend).

Sorry Imran Khan.