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

He'll be trying to settle to avoid potentially damaging/racist/misogynist emails being released to the public.

Sorry what does 'life rights' mean?

Very possibly, MouldyCandy - or maybe Dr Chandauka releasing the evidence she said she had which showed Harry to be a liability to the cause

Given his behaviour at some events I could easily see that starting a chorus of "Us too", which I doubt he'd enjoy

And remember Sophie doesn't have to settle ...

I’ll start it in September unless somebody else wants to start it first? I’m very happy to give way to another poster, as I’m sometimes called away from this Board for a day or two.

Actually I’d be extremely happy to cede, my liege.

In France, invading a person's private life and photographing them in a private place without consent is a criminal offense.

Is it still the case that in France the media cannot be abusive about a dead person?

I'll hear nothing against People magazine, it has made many supermarket queues in the US bearable laughing at the rubbish they peddle!

It's easier for him to blame the paparazzi rather than to acknowledge the part played in her death by the company she was keeping, ie the Dodgy Pharaoh and family and by her choosing not to wear a seat belt, it must be very hard for Harry and William to admit even to themelves that their mother bore a lot of responsibility for her own death.

I'm pretty sure that Burrows was paid

IIRC there was a retainer of £5,000 a month and somethings like £25,000 for a book deal including rights to his life story. I think the total was around £75K.

There was an interview I saw with Harry where he made reference to Diana being chased to her death whilst dating someone who wasn’t white.
I don’t recall much reaction at the time to that implication or racism being a factor.

It’s a bit awkward now Mohamed Al Fayed is known to have been (a) a rapist, and (b) involved in human trafficking and modern slavery.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/03/mohamed-al-fayed-abuse-survivors-confirmed-human-trafficking-victims

He is being compared to Epstein.

Rights to someone’s life story?

Makes sense, think I might be reading too much dystopian fiction because that wasn't my first thought!

Have to agree with you there, JudgeJ, except that when fellow queuers clock my accent, they'll too often start asking me questions - as if I'm in any position to know what the hell's going on!!

I guess where it becomes more interesting is if Burrows not being able to tell or sell stories about Hacked Off, Johnson, Sherborne, Hugh Grant et al because this "book deal" means he no longer owns the rights to publish his own life experiences.

Is it to do with your copyright I wonder? I know with recording artists there have been issues with record labels selling on an artist’s rights without their agreement. Taylor Swift famously re recorded all her albums to devalue the originals where the rights had been sold on. She’s since bought back the rights. I think George Michael had the same problem and he just stopped recording.

So maybe it’s about how the content could be used and who gets paid every time you produce something. I’m sure someone else can explain it better!

I definitely get the impression that Meghan has encouraged Harry's paranoia about Diana's death, for whatever reason

But I was baffled at the time about how the move to Canada/ California and the whole freedom flight thing was treated by the media with such uncritical approbation. I mean, moving to another continent, Harry being cut off from pretty much all of his family and friends based on unprovable allegations of racism and bullying- a good thing?

Have been looking at the 'life rights' issue a bit.

Re the Gavin Burrows life rights story - the only recent information that seems to be available about it is behind the paywall of the recent Upsetter Substack article.

In the UK, no one holds a legal right to the story of his or her life. That means that anyone can write a story about your life and you can't stop them doing that. You could potentially take action against them on the grounds of defamation, or misuse of private information. If they use any material that you have previously copyrighted, you could take action on that basis.
In GB's case, if he has recorded interviews and signed over the copyright to someone else, that could mean he couldn't use those interviews.
However, it wouldn't mean he couldn't use the facts contained in them. There is no copyright in factual information (there is only copyright in creative work).

As always, happy for legal input.

Links
Oral History Society re copyright
Writers' Guild re copyright & life rights
Stewarts Law re life story rights

Yes. But nearly 40k to get his life rights back through an out of court settlement. The 5k retainer was for writing a book, providing expert opinion on stories and going up and down the country as instructed to ‘door knock’ and get information etc on behalf of the research team

There were no conflicting statements because the first statement was not written or signed by Burrows. I respect Gilliard and his brilliant research methods and reporting. He always seems to get to the truth.

And in this case he used open justice rules which very clearly stated that the claimants lawyers knew that Burrows had concerns about an alleged statement written by him in 2022 (that was not written by him hence the Judge saying he could not prove the words came from Burrows because the Solicitor after changing her statement finally admitted under oath she never saw him sign) and he came down hard on her because it’s professional misconduct.

Which is why he contacted the SRA and one of the claimants other lawyers. But four days later with the claimants knowledge of these concerns raised by Burrows, they used him to make a claim, destroyed his family, his life and somehow that’s ok. It’s not ok.

So this story keeps evolving, it keeps giving. The purpose of Burrows meeting Sherborne at a cafe in West London with Saghani? Why? How very, very odd. One meeting with Sherborne. Why?

Operation Bluebird was years in the making. Harris, Johnson, Emma Jones, Saghani, the insurer (part of Sherborne Chambers - how so very convenient) need to seriously be looked at.

Perfect Gravy Train but this time it failed to work. Because the innocent people they accused fought back.

End of!

@AgileRobin Barristers are self employed. Chambers are a collective of self employed barristers. It’s permitted for barristers from the same chambers to represent both sides in court. They must not discuss the case of course. Therefore the barrister advising the insurers can of course come from the highest ranking Chambers in this field of work. He might only see DS at the Christmas drinks party! Their professional lives might never cross but even if they do, they must maintain professional conduct at all times. There are many cases where judges know one of the barristers acting for a client in court, but they are not barred from hearing the case.

@AgileRobin - it's hard to comment on Gillard's research as his article is behind a paywall.

I agree that Operation Bluebird should be thoroughly investigated, and that Sangani at least, if not also Sherborne, should be looked at by their respective professional bodies.

There were conflicting statements in court; I'm happy to say 'attributed to' rather than 'from' Burrows.
As you say, Judge Nicklin said that the claimants had not proved that the 2021 statement was 'made by' Burrows.
He also said: Even if, contrary to my conclusion, the Claimants had proved that the 16 August 2021 witness statement was “made by” Mr Burrows, I would not have accepted the contents of that statement as reliable or true. Proof that a document was made by a witness is not the same as proof that what it says is accurate.
He went on to say that the admissions in the statement would still have to be assessed against the evidence as a whole - and on that assessment also they would be rejected.

He also commented on Burrows' credibility as a witness:

My assessment of Mr Burrows as a witness is stark. His credibility was
comprehensively undermined. His evidence was argumentative, evasive, internally inconsistent and, at times, extraordinary. He made sweeping allegations of fabrication, forgery, conspiracy, bribery and misconduct against a range of people. He alleged that statements, signatures, emails and social media material had been fabricated or manipulated. He advanced elaborate explanations for documents and websites, including assertions about government or security service involvement, without providing any coherent or reliable evidential foundation for those claims. He frequently departed from the question asked, made collateral allegations, and had repeatedly to be reminded to answer questions directly.

I do not consider Mr Burrows to be a witness on whom I can safely rely for any
disputed proposition unless it is clearly corroborated by reliable independent evidence.

Which is why he contacted the SRA and one of the claimants other lawyers. But four days later with the claimants knowledge of these concerns raised by Burrows, they used him to make a claim, destroyed his family, his life and somehow that’s ok. It’s not ok.

Has anyone said that it is OK?

I think it's now very clear that the conduct of the legal investigation team has been questionable, tipping over into dishonesty in the case of the attempt to hide the timeline. The payment of witnesses was also criticised by the judge.

Exactly what went on between Johnson and Burrows I don't think we know. Judge Nicklin put that very clearly:
It may be that the full truth about Mr Burrows’ involvement in this litigation, his dealings with Mr Johnson and others, and the provenance of all the documents attributed to him cannot be fully resolved on the evidence before me. I do not need to resolve those collateral matters. This is not an inquiry into Mr Burrows.

For me the conduct tipped from aggressive to illegal. I don’t know whether the police or CPS will want to touch it. ANL may also want to move on.

Yes, I agree it very much looks like that.

ANL may well decide they've had enough of the whole thing. The standard of proof, of course, would be higher for a criminal case.