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

But that would still have left him with huge costs...

I'm positive he was told.

Whether that translated into him 'knowing' is a different matter. He and his wife seem to have an innate inability to take advice.

Sure.

But the fact that Justice Nicklin didn't even throw him a bone must have come as a shock! He's a prince of the realm.

I assume you mean in his head?

It doesn't change the law.

You could see that Sherborne's "let's chuck a lot of muck and hope some sticks" strategy was going down like a lead balloon when Judge Niklin told him that he was in danger of attempting to reverse the legal burden of proof ie Sherborne was attempting to force ANL to prove themselves innocent rather than the claimants' duty to prove ANL guilty of UIG

I watched CG on the DM podcast where she seemed shaken by the accusations lobbed at her by Sherborne - accusing her of being some sort of hardnosed journalistic "siren" and "honeypot" who had set out to entrap Harry - where the reality was that she was a woman, the same age-group as Harry, who found herself in his extended friendship group through her own friends.

Yes, of course. It's very obvious he doesn't think the law applies to him. Or that the 'little people' should have lives beyond catering to his every whim.

Sorry - my brain is being very slow today. Not sleeping well with the heat!

I thought it was very revealing when Harry said in the witness box that the DM had made his wife’s life a misery. Absolutely nothing to do with any of the claims, which predated Meghan by years. It really came across as - we hate the press - they are not nice enough about us and they must be made to pay for that. The revelation (although it was pretty obvious before) that he was using the same paper to brief against the RF and then lying about it has destroyed any idea that he is on some kind of righteous crusade against the media. Grubby little twat.

But it it was just Harry I could understand the misunderstanding - but the all the claimants and their legal team?

Call me cynical! But I believe the motivation for most of them was quite simple!! Money!
after receiving easy settlements from other papers they thought this would be the same, an easy cash grab , none of them including Sherborne thought this would ever go to court, that’s why the evidence was non existent.

Thank you so much for this

You could see that Sherborne's "let's chuck a lot of muck and hope some sticks" strategy was going down like a lead balloon when Judge Niklin told him that he was in danger of attempting to reverse the legal burden of proof ie Sherborne was attempting to force ANL to prove themselves innocent rather than the claimants' duty to prove ANL guilty of UIG

Exactly.
It was starting to sound like 'Legal studies 101'. I wonder what Judge Nicklin was saying to himself (or friends) when he got out of court?

I haven't seen CG's interview, but have read her account. I did see Katie Nicholl's, and assume Rebecca English will say something on Palace Confidential.
So many people, including Paul Dacre and Stephen Wright, and others who haven't spoken out, who have had their lives affected for years by this unpleasant and totally unnecessary trial.

Gymnopedie · Today 11:01
QEII's 'recollections may vary' seems to gain more weight with every new allegation by Harry.

This is another thing. Anyone can make up anything about celebs and they are generally believed unless the celebrity takes on a very expensive libel case.
Also often it is one person’s word against another.
An extreme example of this is Carl Beech’s extraordinary accusations against various Tories and military bigwigs. Beech was believed by Tom Watson, the police and several posters on here.
So Harry can say anything and others can say what they want about him and who knows the truth.

What’s interesting now is that the old broadsheets are also commenting on this The Telegraph has an article (behind a paywall sadly) where they speak of Harry’s desperation during this case.

The financial backers from the start - Max Mosely, Hugh Grant, Hacked Off have always had the agenda of reigniting the Leveson Inquiry and reducing press freedom - the e-mail exchanges from 2015-6 showed this.

However, the backers wanted greater publicity and coverage than a group of whinging celebs - so there was the infamous e-mail about recruiting "national treasures" and those with "dead children" who would be more effective at whipping up anti-press sentiments
-2019 Elton invited Harry and Meghan to his holiday home and introduced him to Sherborne
-Harry then recruited Doreen Lawrence to the case

Even the (usually pro-Harry & Meghan) Guardian is printing articles that criticize him bringing this case

I can't read this as behind pay wall. Can you screen shot or give me the gist of it. We have all wondered wether insurance will pay out.

Where are all the HAM supporters?

You don't have to be cynical to take that view, jeff - just realistic

Admittedly I also wondered if just the odd one of the claims might have been won, so to see the whole lot wiped out was a mild surprise, but now the attempts to settle have been revealed it seems even the claimants weren't that confident

Never mind though; at least Sherborne won't be short of the price of his hair gel

Share token for the Times article from up thread
Prince Harry faces move to pull plug on court case insurance

https://www.thetimes.com/article/113d30e7-a2c6-4e2e-a16f-16671b415b16?shareToken=a98daa09be3a6e051dd5d85d86264a40

There’s one on the aibu crap dad thread pulling a but Andrew! , it’s not going to plan because these are not the usual posters and it’s not the rf board!

It’s really not looking good for the claimants, they better have some cash under their mattresses.

Thank you @HoldMyWine

Does that poster just write a slightly altered version of the same post on every thread? Seems like it.

I think in H's statement where he and DL say

"'This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, who were represented by, at the time, the judge who made this decision.
'Generic findings about various private investigators that were held by the courts in these parallel claims to have carried out unlawful activity at the very same time in relation to similar stories and well-known individuals have been wholly ignored.
'The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the courtroom itself.'

shows they had a fundamental or indeed wilful misunderstanding of the two cases and to some extent thought this would be an easy win / payday. How this was not explained to them is a mystery to me. Or it was and they ignored it. Or misunderstood. I don't know - any which way - they didn't , it seems to me , understand the basis on which they could win this particular case