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

🍿 I am ready. All the way through the trial I was waiting for the smoking gun revelation that never came. Lack of actual evidence and the convoluted timeline shenanigans was embarrassing.

Me too . I have 🍷.

Surely not already!! You will be pissed before it starts!!! 😉🤣

Chilling nicely !

Ok …….🤣🤣 I’m more see it drink it myself!

Good to see people reconvening on the thread - welcome to newcomers!

Could I put in a request, please, to keep general Sussex comments to other threads, and keep this one to discussion of the case? We've managed to keep the threads fairly non-partisan so far by doing that.

Looking forward to the result and the discussion.

All the way through the trial I was waiting for the smoking gun revelation that never came

You're not alone, @binkie163; of course I wasn't there and the wretched media only report so much, but I kept thinking the claimants surely must have proof instead of all the "I believe that ..." and it just didn't appear to arrive

Oh well, can't be long to wait now ...

Me too! , I kept waiting and waiting! Nothing 🙄

It does look increasingly possible that judgement will be made this week or next. In any event I would have thought it would be before the beginning of the Summer term (31st July). Courts like to keep to a three month period as a gold standard for delivering judgements but that does not mean Nicklin can’t use the Summer period to deliver it. Given that he likes to be timely and that three months in nearly up, it’s possible. On the other hand some lawyers are saying September!

I am going to predict the verdict will come on Wednesday, as that’s the only day this week that I won’t be able to keep even half an eye on what’s happening.

Hi I’ve kept this thread pinned ready for any updates. Hopefully we don’t have to wait much longer. Harold is certainly in a frenzy already.

I think Harry was possibly told the contents of the embargoed judgement (the Ladybird book version) on Friday pm GMT, hence his Saturday psychodrama in California. That’s IF he’s in California. Who knows? Meg seems to be posting from there today, despite Friday's reference to a ‘holiday in Europe’ from Sussex PR.

Anyway that would mean judgement published by Friday this week.

I am frequently wrong.

Meanwhile former Executive Director of the Sussexes’ Archewell Foundation (now ‘Philanthropies’) James Holt is joining Lib Dem HQ as its paid political director. The Lib Dems are closely connected in a couple of interesting ways to Hacked Off through a number of MPs and persons involved with bringing this court case against ANL.

www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/909727/prince-harry-meghan-markle-closest-adviser-praises-pair/

Hugh Grant is manoeuvring also.

Hacked off Hugh Grant pushes Andy Burnham to curb free speech

Labour considers new war on journalism and social media

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/28/hacked-off-hugh-grant-andy-burnham-curb-free-speech/

I haven’t got a problem with Leveson 2 happening. (Police corruption and selling/passing information to the press.) It’s that I no longer trust Hugh Grant nor Hacked Off, and that’s as a result of this case against ANL and the evidence that I have heard.

On X this morning, the ruling is imminent and devastating for Harold

Thank you. Interesting times.

It’s hard to imagine the evidence provided by Charlotte Griffiths not being a final nail in the coffin for H’s case! Did he not realise at the time - had/has not a single member of his legal team mentioned at any point that it had been submitted into the evidence bundle?

And that the messages were all over the news and social media …

I think we’ve worked out that Harry is unlikely to read any documents off his own bat and would have to be prompted or guided through them - but he must have been aware that the messages were ‘out there’ and being ridiculed? And what it meant for his credibility and his case?

I wonder if all the other claimants will blame PH for single handedly pulling the case down?

I don't think they realistically can blame PH, when you look at the lack of hard evidence presented in all their cases, and the email evidence in the cases of SF and SH of knowledge of a potential case well before the deadline.

Thanks for bringing over those references @AnAutumnCrow. I do think both moves are interesting, showing again what I call the current illiberal liberalism (small l - broadly left-leaning and think of themselves as tolerant) - they cannot tolerate people who think differently, so want to control press freedom.

I think all the cases stand and fall individually on their own lack of merits, @Twisterr. This is why the judgement has taken a few months to complete. I expect it will be lengthy!

Maybe though it’s the case that a couple of the luvvies and possibly Hacked Off are disappointed that Harry has fallen from grace so rapidly, from ‘dragon slaying’ poster boy to spoilt bastard laughing stock in California, an unpleasant man trying to emotionally blackmail his own unexpectedly popular father & king using small children and tantrums. H is certainly losing them the PR war as his reputation circles the global toilet bowl.

It’s hard to imagine the evidence provided by Charlotte Griffiths not being a final nail in the coffin for H’s case! Did he not realise at the time - had/has not a single member of his legal team mentioned at any point that it had been submitted into the evidence bundle?

Who can say, @AnAutumnCrow - very possibly he thought it didn't matter what they told him and that only his account mattered - but I did have to smile at the claim that "He cut off contact as soon as he realised she was a journalist"

If you miss off those 4 italicised words, you're left with a very popular Windsor go-to ... Andrew, Charles, now Harry and god knows who else

Thanks @AnAutumnCrow .

Labour considers new war on journalism and social media

I can’t read the article myself as it’s behind a
paywall, but this sounds rather concerning but actually not too surprising. Without wanting to get political, Andy Burnham has a lot of big ideas (but not necessarily all good ideas) and Hacked Off have spotted a window of opportunity.

I feel the same as you about Hugh Grant /Hacked Off as a result of following this case. Hacked Off clearly has an agenda and Mr Grant has two sides to him, he is actually a bit of a snake and I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

On the actual outcome of the case, I too feel sure that PH was informed last week that the case hasn’t gone in his favour, he is now behaving like he is one small step away from being completely out of control.

Agree @AnAutumnCrow - the cases, while being heard simultaneously, are judged individually on their own merits.

We know that PH after he lost his case against the Home Office complained (obviously falsely) that his legal team hadn't explained that he could lose. I wonder if he will say the same thing again if this judgement goes the same way?

I have the same suspicion about H getting the judgement end of last week. The latest security tantrum doesn’t make any sense to me cause nothing has changed unless Megs wants an opt out excuse not to come and face the music.

Agree. I hear “Nothing has changed!” - in my head in Teresa May’s exasperated tone during the Brexit ‘Deal’ negotiations.

It’s been the same security set up that he has utilised time and time again when visiting the UK with or without his wife and children. ‘Nothing has changed!!’

Late to this so apologies if it’s been discussed at length. So could Harry be found guilty of lying under oath? What could be the likely ramifications? I assume any litigation insurance is then invalid?

Could Harry be found guilty of lying under oath? What could be the likely ramifications? I assume any litigation insurance is then invalid?

I don't know, @Candleabra, but I really wouldn't get any hopes up
Wrong as it is people lie under oath all the time, and IMO there's no chance at all of Harry being prosecuted in the UK courts