Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 4

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fourth 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 are: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF).
They are represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) is represented by Anthony White (AMW).

The threads to date have been thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views. We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding partisan discussions on specific Royal Family members, and trying not to be derailed from the topic of court proceedings.
The case has concluded and we are now awaiting the judgement from Judge Nicklin.

We have also 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.

One current ongoing case is that involving @GwendolineFairfax8 - some details towards the end of thread 3.
The case is in court this week and is likely to be reported on at the end of the week.

Links to previous threads

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

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

Just catching up - thanks @GwendolineFairfax8 for the Stephen Lawrence story.
Also some interesting information in there re the role of Imran Khan.

Hope you're OK, @AgileRobin.

I suspect that the DM etc will keep their powder dry, reserve their other stories and drip feed them strategically for the most clicks and £££ for them. The ‘silly season’ is coming up when everyone is on holiday so no real political, business or even RF news. They will roast him over the summer.

Because, to use the old saying, there's no point wrestling with a pig, you both get muddy but the pig likes it. Harry wants The Mail to write stories that include uncomfortable personal details because that would justify his self proclaimed anti-media warrior role. If they instead write stories that prive their case but give Harry privacy they have the moral high ground (although Harry won't see that).

Interesting case. I wonder if any legal experts warned the plaintiffs against going to court. I mean all of them had access to top lawyers.
The Mail will really have it in for them all now. Nonetheless hindsight is a fine thing.
Personally I disapproved of the Max Mosley orgy revelations. What consenting adults do in their spare time is up to them. I heard - don’t know if it’s true - that these ‘alternative’ practices are quite common but the practitioners keep them away from the marital bed (unless, obvs, their partner also enjoys it).

I wonder if today was the scheduled / pencilled in KC3 meeting the kiddos as no public engagement for PH today?
Does anyone know KC3 schedule for today and yesterday - could he have squeezed in tea and biscuits with the Duchess of Gusset and her kiddos?

I think IG and Well Child will both be tomorrow in Birmingham and Scottie’s Little Soldiers is part of a family festival - so won’t be a school day so Sat or Sun?

Then there is the ‘private’ Althorp grave visit (why on earth did they feel the need to announce this personal and sensitive family event to the general public?) - think the estate is closed to public this weekend - so might well be there.

Wonder if MM will come for that part?
Would have expected her at HER friend Massim film premiere - and to tag along to IG and Chelsea Hosp - but it appears she bailed very early - before Mon - before announcement.

Nobody knows where he is staying - which proves it can be kept quiet

A very valid point, @Lunde

To hear Harry you'd think the media crowd would be after him like the hounds of hell, but it's no more true than the errant "pap" was on the car ride where they were squeaking and gibbering about the horror of being followed

Fortunately it just isn't like that any more, but Harry feels it must be in order to get securidee so the lies come tumbling out

There's a weird presumption that very rich people will always bail out/subsidise their friends

It's what Fergie's relied on for decades.

Most rich people like to entertain and host generously but they do not like being taken for mugs. Epstein was a billionaire but he baulked when Fergie demanded he flew her out first (not business) class to see him and had her girls upgraded from Premium to business. Rich people who do "treat" everyone to everything don't stay rich for long at all.

And Elton will have seen this for the disaster it is years ago and decided to stay well clear.

Elton will have seen this for the disaster it is years ago and decided to stay well clear.

He's one of the losing claimants!

Many legal experts would have warned them not to go there. They may (in some cases) have felt rightly violated, but they had no evidence of misdeeds. None of them listened. As M and H clearly NEVER listen to the dozens of excellent PRs they've employed over the years, who always resign in despair.

QEII's 'recollections may vary' seems to gain more weight with every new allegation by Harry.

I mean, we would have warned them. Anyone with basic reading comprehension would have.

The talk on here at the time of the case was bewilderment - we (well certainly me) assume that it wasn't being reported accurately because there appeared to be no evidence at all. Turns out it was reported correctly and there wasn't any proof.

And Elton will have seen this for the disaster it is years ago and decided to stay well clear.

He will have had the choice not to proceed, like any other claimant

That is the thing I will remember about the case, my astonishment at the lack of evidence for the claims. Poster after poster in earlier threads was asking where the evidence actually was and no one had an answer. The whole thing is quite bizarre.

There is an article in the Times which I've read but can't archive but this is the headline. I don't know if anyone has a share token

Prince Harry faces move to pull plug on court case insurance
The Duke of Sussex and other losing celebrity claimants may have to pay Associated Newspapers’ court costs

It sounds to me like someone here did warn them.

Harry complained when he lost his security case that his legal team hadn't warned him that was possible.

The legally qualified posters on here pointed out that he was accusing his team of professional misconduct, as they are required to explain to clients the strength and weakness of the case.

The thing about max mosley which I didn't really realise until reading something recently is that he got his money from Oswald Mosley, the British Nazi, who got it in turn from actual Nazis!

So for someone like that to be wearing the uniform whilst being whipped or whatever is more than just a weekend perv.

And he then used that nazi money to try and change UK politics, I think he got off lightly tbh.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/prince-harry-legal-insurance-daily-mail-court-case-costs-qfdgx39jr

Hope that works.

Yes @NormalAuntFanny, @AnAutumnCrow linked to an interesting DM article recently where he accompanied his father to a gathering of Nazi leaders.

This campaign is Hacked Off using Nazi money, in conjunction with left-wing politicians and celebrities, to try to limit press freedom.

Unfortunately it's still behind a paywall, @Guest385.

Proof of the saying the only difference between right and left wing is the position of their foot on your neck.

Even the judge warned them multiple times at the pre-trial hearings

• the need to produce convincing evidence and not just feelings and vibes
• emphasizing that this was not a public inquiry on the press - evidence needed to focus on the particular articles not general "they're all at it" anti-press comments
• explaining to witnesses that they were there to relate facts (not distress, not guesses, not suspicions or other hurty feelings)
• told the parties that the costs were totally ridiculous when it stood at £38 million last year - especially when you consider that this type of case does not pay out huge damages in the UK courts - when Harry won 15 of 33 cases against the Mirror he was awarded £140,000 in damages - so an average of £9,000-10,000 per case.

emphasizing that this was not a public inquiry on the press - evidence needed to focus on the particular articles not general "they're all at it" anti-press comments

I think this might have been a key misunderstanding. It's not an inquiry to uncover evidence and find the truth, they're saying this is the truth so they need to bring the evidence themselves!

Exactly @Lunde - and those warnings from the pre-trial hearings are all on record; not only in the judgements given at the time, but also referenced in the final judgement (from a quick glance, I haven't got through it all yet).

Judge Nicklin has made it very clear that the claimants were told multiple times what they needed to show, and they didn't do it.

Aren't solicitors legally obliged to give their clients regular updates on the likelihood of their case succeeding? As well as an estimate of the probable costs should they lose?

I suspect even Harry, dim though he is, knew pretty early on that the case was not going to succeed. Hence him looking to settle. But I doubt he foresaw the magnitude of the defeat. Every single one of all 97 claims thrown out. Not even a teeny tiny 'victory' for him to cling to. Because we know if there had been, he'd have crowed about it. From inside the walls of Buckingham Palace if he could have.