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

I doubt Harry will want the bad publicity of hoping someone else will pay his legal costs

Given his almost manic entitlement I'd be amazed if that bothered him, @choux, and he'd probably blame it all on the media anyway

I was encouraged, though, when someone mentioned that ANL may be able to find out where payments had come from ... perhaps we will find out who paid after all?

To be blunt, EJ and DF are equally to blame. Are they led by the nose by Harry or do they have brains of their own? They believed their own hype without evidence too! Why did they not pull out? They had access to the best legal advice and decided to press on. If it’s all gone wrong for them, just too bad really.

has Harry even paid his security case costs yet??

He didn't pay his rent.

I very much doubt he's met what he undoubtedly regards as peripherals.

It was a case of ‘Revengers Assemble’

They are a motley bunch, but I don’t think any of them are the brains behind the operation.

No, just convenient public figures, who could be easily convinced to take a case against the Daily Mail.

ETA Reminder of Evan Harris / Hugh Grant emails, for anyone passing who isn't aware of them
https://archive.ph/VDjFe

I’m completely unsympathetic to all of them, including Doreen Lawrence as she was given the chance to pull out without penalty and chose not to. I hope that for once, Harry gets his come uppance.

Who knows? But I think ANL are in the driving seat here.

Indeed, @Escapefrom1984. It’s a rum business.

At the end of the cliché day, ANL and the Mail are in it to sell newspapers and get the clicks. They may well choose the pursuit of whichever claimant will produce the most newsworthy series of stories with the greatest longevity. That could be judged to be the royal duke, or Elton, or both, or neither.

I suspect there are people at the Mail tempted to pursue Harry quite publicly over this. Wonder if they’ve heard from the MIGS yet.

I suspect they'll be pragmatic about it.

First, they want as much money back as possible.
Secondly, they have a rich seam of stories they can mine for a while from the court case, the claimants, their behaviour, etc.
Thirdly, they may well have some decent investigative journalism going on into Hacked Off / the whole conspiracy.

It will be interesting what happens after the costs judgement - to me it has seemed quiet, as if they've just been sitting waiting for the judgement before releasing certain stories.
Let's see if that's right, or if I've just imagined it.

Harry will find some other useful idiot I’m sure.

I agree.

There is a story here, a lawyer who succeeded in getting pay-outs for wrong-doings by some UK news agencies. Which those agencies admitted to.

Who decided to go after ANL. And Paul Dacre.

With no evidence. So decided to manufacture some. And cook up a story-line to circumvent statutory "'when did you first find out you'd been bugged/hacked" limitations on when people could raise a claim.

I can't see how ANL would not follow up with a journalistic investigation.

I agree and presumably their legal eagles will be nit-picking every sentence before any publication to avoid a 'Revengers Reassamble' scenario!

The brains behind the operation will be keen not to have ANL report in detail on the whole sorry mess.

Could they get the useful idiots to pay / -agree not to appeal if ANL agrees not to report or share the details of the build up to the trial

I was just thinking this, could be beneficial to both.

I don't think ANL would go there.

Payment isn't optional - as @binkie163 says, it's court ordered, it's just a case of whose account it comes from.
As for appeal, on what basis? As I understand it, it would need to be that the judge erred in law or fact. I think t's unlikely they will be given leave to appeal.

I think ANL would have nothing to gain from an agreement like that.

I didn't think we were going to need a new thread, but we've only 10 posts left of this one, so the next thread is here:

Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: Thread 6

Feel free to fill up this thread first.

@Rhaidimiddim If you read the judgement, your summary is somewhat off the mark. The judge was at pains throughout the judgement to say there was no evidence to support the claims. Therefore no evidence was manufactured. What was put forward was a series of newspaper articles which the claimants believed proved ANL got the info by illegal means. They didn’t and defended based on that. Therefore it was essentially assertions and feelings of hurt that were put forward and that ANL must have acted illegally because how else did they get the stories and facts? They said what they believed but did not manufacture (make up) evidence. The articles existed but the claimants could not prove illegal info gathering.

There has been an issue that it’s widely believed this case was campaigning for Leveson 2. This might affect costs.

Barristers are certainly able to advise clients not to proceed because the case is hopeless. Eg lacks credible evidence. However the claimants certainly believed their feelings were correct and wanted their days in court. It’s also believed the judge has significant disquiet about this taking 11 weeks of court time which puts back other important cases. This might affect the costs judgement too.

Don’t forget other papers had lost in court and the claimants believed ANL were guilty too and two claimants then criticised the judge and the judgement. It’s a mess for the claimants in many ways and if there’s an inquiry into the court legal teams, the Bar Standards Board will be involved. Taking a case when instructed by solicitors and clients is not poor practice though. Not stopping the case is not the decision of the barristers either. They are advocates for the clients but determined clients don’t always listen to good advice and a case has to be made. The case is not dreamt up by barristers. It was more about Harry and the others wanting to thump ANL.

Wasn’t the Gavin Burrows statement manufactured though ? he claimed it was forged and not his statement and the dodgy solicitor who signed it as being witnessed by her, had to admit she didn’t actually witness the statement at all. That was a crucial piece of evidence, and it was proven it wasn’t his actual notarized statement.

The Gavin Burrows element is very suspicious.

The whole statement was to try to force DM into settling and demand a new enquiry Once Burrows retracted it, the case should have been withdrawn.

Another piece of evidence which appeared to be manufactured, was organising with the /byline Times to run a report to allow them to conceal the time limitation restrictions.

In reality though, he didn’t retract it, he claimed he never wrote it in the first place.

That appeared to be proven by the fact it was not personally witnessed and notarized by the solicitor, as it should have been, a pretty fundamental legal obligation,

He was hired to help their pressure campaign but never planned to be a witness by the sound of things, just planned to milk the Max Mosley gravy train as long as he could.

Am I remembering correctly that they cobbled together a few things he had said in text messages and emails and concocted a statement from that ?

I think the Liz Hurleys listening bugs on her window sill and in her home were manufactured. She didn't keep them, photograph them, report to police or private security and no one else saw them!!
Must have had 'property of ANL ' stamped on them as she said categorically belonged to DM!! Total fabrication/manufactured.
Stories that never even appeared in DM.
I seem to remember the American chaps evidence was ludicrous and bore no semblance of truth, completely manufactured.
The woman who admitted she was happy to say anything as they were paying for her accommodation and retainer, the judge was not happy with her.
As pp said manufactured time lines and as for DL suggestion that they bugged her local coffee shop with zero evidence/proof not even witnessed by shop owner.
Lying/manufactured take your pick. Very little can be put down to hurty feelings, this appears to be a deliberate con.

Yes, according to the Law Society Gazette, Judge Nicklin 'found that a 'imitation camouflage scheme' had been attempted by Simon Hughes's team. It was described as an improper effort to blunt ANL's legal time-bar arguments by obscuring when the claimant actually became aware of the necessary facts to bring the lawsuit.'

Sorry, 'LIMITATION camouflage scheme' !!