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

It actually reflects badly on the honesty of the person being settled with, because if they think you did wrong, why would they agree to say you didn't if you pay them? Settling doesn't have to involve the claimant retracting the accusation. If that had gone through, I guess the terms would have to be confidential otherwise it really blows a hole through the whole thing; doesn't make anyone look good.

While we all.understand how settlenent negotiations work and the money bit of it, and DL and her lawyers dud nithing unusual.

What is galling, and what has done for DL's reputation, is offering to make a statement supportive of DM and Staphen Wright if she got the money. When she didn't get the money, she reverted to her "they're nasty" statement.

So, she'll lie for cash.

She’s got the same issue as well regarding the potential for ‘Founder’s Syndrome’: she’s the Founder and Chair of Trustees of the Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation. A family member is a ‘family trustee’.

The charitable objects are: ‘the promotion of (i) equality and diversity (ii) racial harmony and (iii) social inclusion in each case for the public benefit …’

… but yet she made that awful statement about London firefighters being racist (they aren’t) after Grenfell, and caused huge upset. She was slow with her eventual non-apology.

Tbf to DL, she receives no remuneration for her Chair of Trustees role, nor does her family member. So there’s nothing like Harry’s alleged Invictus expenses issues going on.

It’s perhaps more akin to Harry’s perceived ‘ownership’ of Diana’s memory, and the association of that with ‘good causes’ which promotes the memorialised person and also promotes and gives purpose to those claiming ownership of the memorialisation process. It can go well, but there are well-known ‘Founder’s Syndrome’ pitfalls (eg Sentebale; and what happened to DL’s precursor charity).

Undoubtedly, however there is no way she’s worse than Harry!

Soz, that reply was to @MeetMeOnTheCorner .

I do believe DL's reputation is looking worse that H. He seems to be delusional, whereas her actions seem to be calculated and cynical.

I suspect Sentebale has evidence of a calculating side.

Talking of which … thanks for the feedback on having a separate Sentebale thread. Looks like we’re doing that then, nearer the time, if developments occur. I don’t mind not starting it btw if anyone else wants to be the illustrious OP. I’m not a natural thread-starter.

I think it’s the seemingly casual lying that’s surprising, and as someone who takes such a public moral stance

Absolutely, @noonames, but then it's the stance she's leaned on to render herself untouchable, and with some it works

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

There is indeed a very big difference, @bluegreygreen, but I don't think it's suits some for it to be noted, and god forbid anyone should ever confront Doreen with it because they too would no doubt instantly be deemed racist

My mn was down on web and app ! Anyone else?

Yes, just back up here

Great thanks.

Yes had internal error server message.

I think it was possibly a Cloudflare maintenance issue?

It was very odd! It coincided with a very nasty thread about Catherine ( that me and others reported since last night!) being taken down and us receiving emails!! , so my tinfoil was being readied!

Yes, @Puzzledandpissedoff, there are people that appear to be above criticism.

Speaking of which, there is an article in the Telegraph today that could be interesting, if anyone is able to access it.
It's by a barrister called Jon Holbrook and is dealing with cancel culture. He was (apparently - I haven't read it) expelled from his chambers and fought to clear his name after being fined for accusing some Muslims of being critical of free speech.
He was cleared of wrongdoing and now works on behalf of victims of cancel culture.

I thought it might fit in with our theme of freedom of speech.

Brilliant read and just about sums it all up. Thank you for posting it

Yes mn have been having server problems apparently and it wouldn't load.

Hasn’t seen that. However I’m not surprised and have been expecting it.

yes! , honestly you are better off not seeing it!

I have a different take on this. To me, it suggests that Baroness Lawrence was desperate to get out of the case, but was hamstrung by the fact that if she simply discontinued her claim, which she could do, that means (a) she is personally liable for her share of the defendants’ costs, and (b) her after-the-event insurance, which she needs to pay her own lawyers’ fees, let along the other side’s costs, would probably not pay out.

So she is looking for a settlement with some payment coming to her as otherwise she’ll be sunk financially by her own lawyers’ bills. Clearly, as the negotiations progress she and her team are looking for ways to “sweeten the deal” to attempt to get a payment from the Mail’s team. Unfortunately for her, the Mail refused to blink. Last chance saloon for the Baroness would have been suggesting a “drop hands” settlement where both sides agree to walk away and no claims for costs are made by the defendant but each still have to bear their own legal costs. The fact she didn’t offer this points strongly to the fact that she was desperate to get some money out of the case.

It’s a cautionary tale to be very careful about getting involved in litigation. Because once it starts you are not in control of the outcome.

@SerensterIt’s widely reported that DS and his chambers were on no win no fee. However with an agreement, she might not have got no win no fee from them. Who knows?

@RhaidimiddimWell the problem is that if you want their money, they need something in return don’t they? They believed they would win so of course they wanted DL to exonerate them. They are now in a far better position than if they had paid her and frankly, she’s been foolish. But they were not gojng to hand over £650,000 and still have her calling them all things under the sun. Of course people will change their views for money! Who paid some of the witnesses?

“No win no fee” is a bit of a misleading slogan. Your solicitors don’t actually work for free - there are funding mechanisms as part of the arrangements that pay their costs, but most of these don’t allow a claimant to simply discontinue their claim.

From the SRA website:

Is there any risk of paying costs if I sign up to a 'no win, no fee' agreement?
Lots of people have benefited from them, and usually they work as expected.
However, these agreements may not be completely risk-free. You will need to understand the details of your individual agreement. And there are sometimes cases where you may end up having to pay substantial costs. For instance:

• If you decide to stop a claim after the cooling-off period (usually 14 days), you may be charged to cancel your agreement. If work has been done on your claim, you may be charged fees, and these could be substantial

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/choosing/no-win-no-fee/

Whatever the legal take, at the centre of it is a woman who is prepared to stand by a statement saying:

DM and Stephen Wright = good people

Or the opposite:

DM and Stephen Wright = bad people

Depending entirely on the finances of the situation.

In other words, a person prepared to lie for financial gain.

Last chance saloon for the Baroness would have been suggesting a “drop hands” settlement where both sides agree to walk away and no claims for costs are made by the defendant but each still have to bear their own legal costs. The fact she didn’t offer this points strongly to the fact that she was desperate to get some money out of the case

While this makes perfect sense, @Serenster, ANL would have still had to agree, and I'm not sure that was ever likely when all along they've taken a "sue and be damned" approach - and been vindicated

So as you say, DL was taking a risk in suing, but then every fool knows that and still she went ahead without any evidence to offer