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

Thanks @Lunde - I hadn't realised the difference in number of times hacked

I was looking at the definition of vexatious litigation ( Google) . Of the three characteristics two may possibly apply. Viz actions that stand little or no chance of success ... actions brought primarily to cause embarrassment harassment or financial strain. Just a thought. Obviously not my area of expertise!

Another Times article with share token

Palace ‘jaws were on the floor’ after Prince Harry’s judiciary attack

https://www.thetimes.com/article/af8f2932-ecac-433b-9485-dfc7786aafca?shareToken=8204e20e2a6a6e6092c13ddeeaaccbc1

@Lunde Harry et al wanted their days in court and wanted Hacked Off to succeed! Very different to William and had it gone to court maybe ANL would have won that one too? Newspapers believe this case was also about demanding new legislation to curb the press. William wasn’t publicly about that either. ANL wanted to settle with DL but she wanted to make her accusations in court too and if I was ANL I’d be hacked off with that!

Decent article in the Times today about costs. The judge can authorize a higher level of costs but ANL will need him to agree to the indemnity order they will be asking for. This means the costs are far more fluid and not capped. As the claimants lost on every count, many people think ANL will win this too. That brings in a payment on account, who
pays and their insurance. The insurance company might well fight their corner hard too.

@bluegreygreen - thank you for that link. I absolutely think Judge Nicklin will not let his personal feelings sway his judgment over costs - but Oh my goodness I wouldn't blame him if he treated himself to a good single malt , or a nice cup of tea , after reading H's and DL's statement . H I think really understands things less than he thinks he does. & I for one admire Nicklin for getting through this very high profile case so calmly. He was in the spotlight, but I think I have more faith in the judiciary than H.

Is that an update on the article @HoldMyWine linked yesterday?

Are you able to share it?

ETA William's case was against NGN, not ANL.

I had to laugh, not only did he get less sausage he got less hacked 😂 😂 😂

That's good 😂

A lengthy analysis
Plot to destroy the press: the real story of Harry’s hacking trial

https://www.thetimes.com/article/7a8c3b2d-9149-484c-8093-a4d65b174c4e?shareToken=95721fd65ce47942fd6d1e51ab7921f7

I can’t see that it’s been updated

Thanks for that article @HoldMyWine.

We've seen most of it before, mostly in various Telegraph articles, but it's good to see it all pulled together again now that the judgement has been handed down, especially as more readers will probably see it.

Going through it step-by-step again, I do wonder if there are any charged that could be brought against the claimants' legal team (thinking around the area of payment for witnesses, for example).

Also Sherborne must have realised that Hacked Off were using Byline to fudge the statute of limitations problem

Yes, please!

That's true.

Would that mean reports to professional bodies for the lawyers involved?

Evan Harris is no longer on the medical register; if he were, being censured by a judge for dishonesty probably falls into the category of things to cause you to self-refer to the GMC.

I've been thinking about Baroness Lawrence, and seriously wondering about contacting the Lord Speaker or Lord Chancellor.

@bluegreygreen The article today (and i actually have the paper) recaps yesterday with added comments from a retired costs judge. It adds in who might pay for what and what the judge will consider because he found nothing in favour of Harry et al at all.

Regarding DS, you would need to read through the Bar Standards Board conduct requirements. He was only one of 4 or 5 barristers representing the claimants though. Two are KCs.

Thanks @MeetMeOnTheCorner

@bluegreygreen This is part of the conduct rules for barristers from the BSB web site.

Thanks for pointing me to the Bar Standards Board, @MeetMeOnTheCorner.

It's similar to the GMC, in that it has a self-referral requirement (as well as others being able to refer, obviously).

Included in their list of serious misconduct, for which one should self-refer, are:

• encouraging a witness to give evidence which is untruthful or misleading
• knowingly or recklessly misleading, or attempting to mislead, the court or an opponent

Bar Standards Board: Reporting Serious Misconduct

Sorry @MeetMeOnTheCorner - we crossposted!

I was looking at a different page, but obviously the general gist is the same.

From the list you were looking at, the dishonesty in covering up the dates, the payments to witnesses, Gavin Burrows' statement would all be covered.

Is Simon Hughes still a barrister?

@bluegreygreen Barristers cannot coach witnesses or clients. Their job is to construct the case. They did have very keen clients though! Could be interesting to see if anyone complains but it’s difficult to prove if anyone was encouraged to do anythjng wrong but don’t forget Burrows changed his stance and spoke for ANL. I assume the claimants paid the money not the barristers.

I was wondering whether there would be any specific reason for the judge to want to ensure that any costs claims remain capped...I think his directions were in relation to ensuring that case costs remained sensible and proportionate.

I would think it quite reasonable for ANL to want to claim costs on the basis that the claimants case was wholly lacking in evidence and should not have been allowed to proceed.

ANL were forced to rack up very substantial costs to defend themselves appropriately. The case was utterly lacking in merit so I think its fair for them to want reimbursement from the group of claimants for every penny spent.

Harry and the other claimants wanted ANL to cave and offer them a settlement but quite rightly ANL said no...

This was just a fishing expedition and I would hope the solicitors and barristers for the claimants warned them of the risk of losing and being held liable for ANLs costs.

I understand that when Judge Nicklin makes his ruling on costs award then the claimants have a very short deadline of 14 days to pay the amount due. This could be a very expensive bill for the claimants and only a tiny amount of time in which to come up with the money..