The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: April - August 2023


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes - there are 4 test cases. It'll be interesting to see what the others have to say. It's easy to argue that anyone might have rung a photographer to say that Prince Harry was in a strip club, but how many people are likely to have leaked information about two soap opera actors who are only famous to those of us who watch their programmes?

To be fair to Jane Kerr, some of these stories date back to 1996. It's not unreasonable to have forgotten details from nearly 30 years ago.
 
? People who saw a soap actor in a strip club are quite likely to have called the press or sold the story. Soap actors are of interest to the tabloids.
 
At the end of Harry's witness statement is a list of documents including PI invoices related to Chelsy Davey and others. Was there cross examination of Jane Kerr or anyone else regarding those invoices? I know that it is early in the proceedings so maybe it will be addressed at a later point, if it has not been already.
 
I'm a bit confused as how this works, now Niki Sanderson a soap actress is giving her evidence so will the judge consider each in turn or collectively and what happens then? Is this simply to see if a bigger case with all 100 can go ahead?

I will say yes the media was out of control back in the days being reported on, in a lot of ways they aren't much better but a lot of the illegal activity was addressed in the Levenson enquiry so Harry suggesting he will have any impact in changing that is misguided IMO.
 
The idea seems to be that, if it goes against the Mirror Group, the judge'll use the four test cases to set the level of damages, and will then hear from the other claimants. The four test cases are set to last about seven weeks. I'm not sure if everyone else will then be cross-examined in so much detail - it'd take years.
 
Alison H said:
It's hard to believe that over 100 people are all mistaken in thinking that their phones were hacked, but I don't know how they can actually prove it.
Click to expand...


Tina Brown relied on a former tabloid editor when writing about the hacking and blagging and illicit spying activity for her book "The Palace Papers". The former editor, Graham Johnson, worked for the Mirror and NOTW during the late 90's and early 2000's. He confessed to hacking, did a few months jail time and transformed himself into a whistleblower. The operation he described in going after Chelsy Davy was brutal. This Graham Johnson was in the thick of it.

I would be surprised if he was not called to testify.
 
Leopoldine said:
Tina Brown relied on a former tabloid editor when writing about the hacking and blagging and illicit spying activity for her book "The Palace Papers". The former editor, Graham Johnson, worked for the Mirror and NOTW during the late 90's and early 2000's. He confessed to hacking, did a few months jail time and transformed himself into a whistleblower. The operation he described in going after Chelsy Davy was brutal. This Graham Johnson was in the thick of it.

I would be surprised if he was not called to testify.
Click to expand...

He has already given evidence:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...nes-was-involved-in-phone-hacking-court-hears
 
I am also rather confused as to what the case has to do with Meghan. Harry is saying he is going through this to protect Meghan and his family, but his complaints are relating to stories over 20 years ago.
 
Can it be that the purpose of Harry's appearance is to show how damaged he is?

If old tabloid hands who committed these crimes are giving testimony, factual, detailed, etc., and they run through the litany of intrusive illegal acts, Harry doesn't need to be Mr. Facts-at-my-fingertips. He's damaged because of their acts and they describe how it was done.
 
In the US, establishing harm to the alleged victims is usually a requirement of proving one's case. Our system is based on English common law, so I would imagine it's similar there. Maybe Harry's testimony is just about the evidence of harm to him, and they'll have some other evidence that more conclusively establishes that hacking took place.
 
The Mirror Group's apologised to actress Nikki Sanderson for using private investigators to find out information about her, and the court's heard how distressed she was about the hassle from the press and the stories about her, especially as she was only in her early teens when it began. But, again, there's no hard evidence of phone hacking.
 
It’s not just about phone hacking however, but illegal gathering of information about people in all sorts of ways and the terrible distress that sort of media harassment causes, and still does.
 
I'm just a bit sad Harry focusses on just the bad media coverage and not about the good, because i think objectively speaking over the years (well until Harry started to throw all kinds of info around himself) there has been much more good than bad...

he will never find peace if he thinks everyone in the whole world should be gushing about him, because that happens for no one, not even Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela
 
Despite there being no evidence of phone-hacking, in Nikki Sanderson's case I noticed that there was evidence of payments to PIs who were linked to illegal practices so there was enough proof to warrant an admission and apology from MGN for that specifically.

In Harry's case, they don't appear to have found the above so perhaps his case is the weakest on evidence.
 
Lee-Z said:
I'm just a bit sad Harry focusses on just the bad media coverage and not about the good, because i think objectively speaking over the years (well until Harry started to throw all kinds of info around himself) there has been much more good than bad...
Click to expand...

Harry used to be the most popular royal, despite the reports of his drug-taking and dressing up as a Nazi. Having read Spare, where he admits to far more than was ever reported, I think he got off lightly compared to some other people. I'm not condoning hounding people in the press or illegal practices of course, just saying that the public's perception of Harry, formed partly by the tabloid press, was overwhelmingly positive and it's his own words and actions that have caused his popularity to plummet.
 
Curryong said:
It’s not just about phone hacking however, but illegal gathering of information about people in all sorts of ways and the terrible distress that sort of media harassment causes, and still does.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt about it that it can cause distress, take it from someone who experienced her family in the press, only for a very short time but it was horrible. Reporters knocking at the door.

The case is accusing the newspaper group of phone hacking and illegal activities, this is the problem, horrible press stories does not always mean illegal activities. There is always somebody ready to sell a story. Maybe somebody could clarify if paying somebody for a story is classed as illegal activities ? Lets be honest did the newspapers really care how they informant managed to get the story, or can they say their hands are clean because they only paid for the information, they did not gather it themselves and did not ask too many questions or accepted the response to the questions.
 
Hallo girl said:
There is always somebody ready to sell a story. Maybe somebody could clarify if paying somebody for a story is classed as illegal activities ?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that if private information was gathered illegally eg hacking phones, bugging homes, accessing someone's bank account or medical records by deception, then it's also illegal to publish that material. If the private information was not gathered illegally eg a barman tipping off the press about a VIP visitor or a celeb's friends disclosing information about the state of a relationship, then it's not illegal to publish it. There will be some grey areas of course but I believe that's the basics. I'm happy to be corrected if I have that wrong.
 
Lilyflo said:
Despite there being no evidence of phone-hacking, in Nikki Sanderson's case I noticed that there was evidence of payments to PIs who were linked to illegal practices so there was enough proof to warrant an admission and apology from MGN for that specifically.

In Harry's case, they don't appear to have found the above so perhaps his case is the weakest on evidence.
Click to expand...
In Harry's statement he entered into evidence documents about PI payments to people in his circle like Chelsy Davey, I recently asked the question whether there has been cross-examination about those documents, or if it is coming up? Harry also testified about finding a tracking device on Chelsy's car and names the person who put it there.

IMO evidence related to PI payments and the tracking device will be the strongest part of his case, and the relevance of Harry's testimony is what is referred in the U.S. as a victim impact statement.
 
Queen Claude said:
In Harry's statement he entered into evidence documents about PI payments to people in his circle like Chelsy Davey, I recently asked the question whether there has been cross-examination about those documents, or if it is coming up? Harry also testified about finding a tracking device on Chelsy's car and names the person who put it there.

IMO evidence related to PI payments and the tracking device will be the strongest part of his case, and the relevance of Harry's testimony is what is referred in the U.S. as a victim impact statement.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's illegal to pay PIs to find and provide information, provided they don't use illegal methods so Harry's legal team would have to show evidence that those particular PIs did that, which they haven't been able to show, unlike in Nikki Sanderson's case.

The tracking device, which is a terrible thing to do, could have been put there by anyone so even though it's likely to have been linked to press stalking, there's no evidence it was so who are they going to pin it on? It could have been any PI working for any newspaper.
 
Wow - well maybe I won't say my full feelings on this...all I'll say is how odd for Harry to carry Spare books of "Spare" around. Wonder how many copies they bought just for this.
 
cut out words and phrases from it to create a ransom letter
 
As Spare was a best seller lots of people have wanted one. Harry probably offered a copy that was in his hand luggage. And the air steward didn’t object, in fact wanted a pic with Harry and posed with him. That doesn’t sound like an unwilling participant to me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -
23 24 25
Replies
728
Views
76K
TLLK
T
Marengo
  • Locked
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024
103 104 105
Replies
3K
Views
494K
Ista
Ista
iceflower
The Duchess of Edinburgh's Fashion and Style, Part 2: July 2024 -
Replies
26
Views
2K
Elly C
Elly C
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Felipe, Queen Letizia and Family, General News, Part 3
Replies
5
Views
2K
Somebody
Somebody
Somebody
Infanta Margrita and The Zurita Family General News: June 2024 -
Replies
1
Views
751
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom