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

Of course I knew that. I was focusing on a specific condition of her offer to "completely withdraw" ( not settle) which shows her in a very bad light.

It's not negotiating to agree or even offer to alter sworn testimony without informing the court that the information provided you now believe is incorrect. So for under a million she was willing to change her mind but because they didn't budge she has allowed the testimony to stand.

I'm definitely looking forward to the end of the month and finding out how the costs will be allocated - the icing on the cake!

@Vespanest The reports are one thing but as it never happened we don’t know what statement would have been issued. Rightly ANL refused to engage and of course a saving face statement is put out! She had not been to court so her opinion had not been tested. Anyway I’m looking forward to her blackmail case!

Whatever the facts, there is absolutely no chance there will be a blackmail case. The optics of the met police and the cps pursuing charges against DL for possible actions during a legal case brought against a newspaper would be terrible.

But hopefully the behaviour of all the claimants will affect how much of the legal costs they are expected to pay.

And her attempt at extraction of huge amounts of money for something that never happened has thankfully gone catastrophically wrong for her. Pure avarice and greed and now she will reap the consequences

I agree completely, Noodledog; Doreen has effectively become untouchable, and I'm no more comfortable with that that I am when the same applies to certain members of the RF - or anyone else, come to that

I'm even more uncomfortable with her inclination to hurl accusations of racism when there's no justification ... see the firefighters as an example. Yes the terrible murder of her son was undoubtably racist, but that doesn't hand her the right to apply it to whatever she fancies over three decades later

The "blackmail" element of her behaviour was her demand for money - a quiet £650,000 backhander - to release a statement that she believed ANL had done no wrong. Greedy, greedy, greedy.

Yes. I wonder what her colleagues in the House of Lords think. Mind you, she’ll hardly be the first member of second chamber to raise eyebrows.

Did DL not also accuse a journalist who had supported her previously of racism whilst knowing his wife and children were black or of mixed race?

I really can’t decide if it’s arrogance or ineptitude at play here.

Yes, Stephen Wright, the person who she was apparently going to say had done nothing wrong if she was given some money.

It will be interesting to see if the claimants insurance company Temple Legal Protection in Guildford pay up or dispute the claim based on lies and misinformation given to them prior to the case beginning.

I think it will weaken them as a company either way, publicly not paying makes them seem flaky but equally not contesting the payout looks like passing costs on to potential new clients.

About as likely as her suing the ANL legal team/the Times for libel, and less likely than her and H getting a perjury charge.

Who are Temple Legal? They don't appear to be very big

@Rhaidimiddim That was a tongue in cheek comment from me! I’m not sure perjury is on the cards because it must concern a material fact and DLs views were opinions. It’s a high bar for perjury

So, genuine question, what IS it called when someone says, “If you give me £650K, I won’t drag you through court and embarrass you?”
Not blackmail, I agree.

Quite mind boggling that having made a sworn statement against the DM, she offered to say the opposite if they paid her £650k. Then when ANL say no, she sticks with the original story. I can’t believe that’s going to go down well with her HoL pals.

@BillyBites It’s an out of court settlement. In high profile cases, most sides then agree to shut up. The lawyers determine the sum but there’s no losers. The reason it’s done is to save court costs which are vast, and loss of reputation. ANL weighed up that they would win in court and a win usually means they get awarded costs. They had said they didn’t hack in the way alleged and stood their ground. Harry and DL maybe were being advised their “evidence” wasn’t good enough to win and it was therefore in their interests to settle. This is fairly usual too. However wanting money is not the same as getting it. Their lawyers didn’t have a good enough case to get an out of court settlement.

The noise around who said what and who wanted £££ is presumably accurate but I can see why ANL decided to go ahead with the case (which they were defending) because they believed it would damage the claimants more than them and they wished to defend their deputation. Not a single claim was proved so why would you pay an out of court settlement.

I suspect there are “rules of engagement” for such negotiations but reputational damage and avoiding massive costs are the driving factors.

Think of it like a divorce financial negotiation. Doing it via mediation costs less than getting barristers for a court case.

Her other option of course was to just withdraw at that time without a cash settlement if she believed her evidence was erroneous or inadequate.

Might it be called an unreasonable and unserious ‘settlement offer’ that arguably attempts to make a mockery of the civil procedure rules?

I doubt it’s put her a positive position when it comes to the costs awards hearings. The word that the ANL barrister(s) has to repeat is ‘unreasonable’, with a nod to the lack of all evidence and the disproportionate amount of money she wanted. Perhaps also, her continuing disrespect to the court via her intemperate ‘whitewash’ statement.

What did she need £650k for, btw? New house? Lifestyle upgrade? Aren’t the House of Lords expenses enough? I thought they were quite generous, just for turning up. She claimed the maximum number of days for January 2026, I see (x20), which paid her £7,420 for that month.

Which is interesting as she was reportedly in court on the opening day, 19th January, according to (eg) Sky News.

Records show she would have turned up late for the Lords on that day after she left court and travelled across London (not far). She went through a division (a voting queue) at around 8pm (recorded), and then got to claim the full daily rate of £371. It’s all online open public information, easily found, if you want to see what the Lords claim as expenses and allowances, what they cost us, and say about contentious matters.

Is it so very surprising though, noonames?

I mentioned upthread that Neville Lawrence disclosed she'd tried to haggle the £320k from the Met up to £500k, so if this is true it all sounds much of a piece

DL is looking worse than Harry reputation wise now.

Let’s not go that far!

I think it’s the seemingly casual lying that’s surprising, and as someone who takes such a public moral stance, basically deciding which line she was going to take based on where the most profit might be.

Either she believed the Mail had engaged in UIG - in which case she offered to lie if they paid her £650k, or she didn’t believe it, in which case what was she doing bringing the case in the first place, and providing sworn statements that they had?

(Unless I have completely misunderstood - that’s how it looks to me tho.)

Grifters of a feather, flock together

Everyone accepts that there is negotiation for out-of-court settlements.

However, to my mind, there is a difference between
'If you give me £650k, I will settle the case'
and, as is being reported
'If you give me £650k, I will give a statement saying that X did nothing wrong'
when your sworn witness statement already details the list of things you consider X to have done that are wrong.

Both statements cannot be true, so you must be lying in one of them.