Prince Harry Must Pay Mail on Sunday £48,447 ($60,927) in Legal Fees - DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts

Ladybbird · 09-10-22, 08:09

Prince Harry Elton John Doreen Lawrence, and Others Launch Legal Action Against Daily Mail Publisher

Famous Figures including Elton John accuse Associated Newspapers of ‘gross breaches of privacy’

The Guardian UK 9 OCT 2022

Sir Elton John is among several public figures taking legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail over what they call "gross breaches of privacy".

The Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and actresses Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley have also filed cases against Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Baroness Lawrence's son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack in 1993...

The company's alleged activity includes having listening devices secretly placed inside people's cars and homes.

A spokesman for ANL described the allegations as "preposterous smears".

In a statement, the newspaper group said: "We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old.

"These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims - based on no credible evidence - appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere."

The company also publishes The Mail on Sunday and the Mail Online.

Sadie Frost won damages from Mirror Group Newspapers in 2015 over phone-hacking

Law firm Hamlins, which is representing Prince Harry and Frost, said in a press release that those taking action had been the victims of "abhorrent criminal activity".

In the statement, Hamlins alleged that the activity included:

"The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people's cars and homes
"The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people's live, private telephone calls whilst they were taking place
"The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information
"The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception
"The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation"

Hamlins added: "It is apparent to these individuals that the alleged crimes listed above represent the tip of the iceberg - and that many other innocent people remain unknowing victims of similar terrible and reprehensible covert acts.

"They have now therefore banded together to uncover the truth, and to hold the journalists responsible fully accountable, many of whom still hold senior positions of authority and power today."

Sir Elton John's husband David Furnish is also named as one of the figures taking action against the media company.

Baroness Lawrence, Hurley, Sir Elton and Furnish are being represented by law firm Gunnercooke.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have had a difficult relationship with the British press for several years - the couple have previously said they would have "zero engagement" with four major British papers, including the Daily Mail, accusing them of false and invasive coverage.

The duke separately sued Associated Newspapers for libel in February over an article in the Mail on Sunday about his legal battle with the Home Office. In an initial ruling in the ongoing case, a judge said parts of the story were potentially defamatory.

Last year, the duchess won the latest stage in her legal fight against the publisher over a story about a letter she sent to her father.

Jonathan Coad, a media lawyer who has previously been involved in legal action against Associated Newspapers, said the allegations were even more serious than phone-hacking.

"They are highly intrusive. They are means of delving into the private lives of people, and private lives which are protected by statute and the human rights act, and by the European convention on human rights.

"So it is a gross invasion of privacy if these things occurred, and it would be absolutely right and proper if they did occur, that Associated Newspapers and hopefully some of their senior figures, are held to account."

Ladybbird · 28-03-23, 05:05

Lady Doreen Lawrence Claims Paper Hired Investigators to Hack Her Phone

Prince Harry lost friends over Mail stories, as Elton Johns’ landline was tapped

Investigator jailed for phone hacking claims Mail on Sunday paid for his information

High court also hears claims against Associated Newspapers brought by Prince Harry, Elton John and Liz Hurley among others

BBC 28 MAR 2023

Doreen Lawrence has claimed the Daily Mail hired private investigators to hack her phone and obtain information on her murdered son, potentially disrupting the police investigation into the racially motivated killing.

Lady Lawrence now believes she “failed her murdered son” by trusting the Daily Mail during the 1990s, claiming the news outlet only campaigned for justice on behalf of Stephen Lawrence in a cynical bid to sell more newspapers.

The allegations were set out in detailed documents released during an extraordinary hearing at the high court.

Lawrence, the Duke of Sussex and Elton John all turned up to hear legal arguments in the cases they have brought against Associated Newspapers, the owner of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline.

Along with actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, and the former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes, they accuse the titles of making widespread use of illegal reporting tactics to obtain stories over more than 20 years.

At Monday’s preliminary hearing in central London, lawyers for Associated Newspapers attempted to stop the claims from going to trial, where the allegations would be heard in full.

At the end of proceedings Harry – who had sat at the back of the court making notes – headed straight to warmly greet Lawrence, engaging the Labour peer in conversation and chatting as they headed out of the courtroom together.

Until now the Daily Mail has largely escaped the phone-hacking allegations that led to the closure of the News of the World but the newspaper now faces a major challenge that could result in serious reputational damage.

The allegations relate to a period when the Daily Mail was edited by Paul Dacre, who remains a senior executive at Associated Newspapers and has been nominated for a peerage in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours.

The Mail has dismissed all the claims as “preposterous smears” and is trying to stop the case going to trial on multiple grounds.

The newspaper ran a long campaign to identify the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence, culminating in a front-page story accusing five individuals of murder. The paper often held up the story as an example of newspaper’s commitment to fighting for justice on behalf of those who lack a voice, recently calling its campaign a “key moment in British race relations history”.

Lawrence said she now believed the campaign on behalf of her son was a cynical way to sell newspapers by appearing to be on the side of a young man killed in a racist attack.

In documents filed to court, her lawyers said Lawrence “cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason”.

“She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool.”

Rather than campaigning due to a genuine desire to get justice for Stephen, she “now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers, and to profit”.

“She wonders whether trusting the Daily Mail as she did caused her to have delayed or have failed her murdered son,” the documents say. “She asks herself whether more individuals could have been arrested, whether earlier investigations might have been more successful, and whether she could have got justice.”

The documents say Lawrence now “feels a deep sense of betrayal. She finds it hard to believe the level of duplicity and manipulation that was clearly at play, knowing now as she does that the Daily Mail’s outward support for her fight to bring Stephen’s killers to justice was hollow, and worse, entirely false”.

Among other claims, she alleges the Daily Mail instructed private investigators to: conduct illegal interception of her voicemail messages, tap her landline telephone, blag personal records, monitor her bank accounts and phone bills, conduct covert electronic surveillance and make corrupt payments to serving Metropolitan police officers working on her son’s murder investigations in return for confidential information.

She said that to this day the Mail continued to engage in “manipulation and pretence of being on her side”.

The Daily Mail strongly denies the allegations and said that they believe Lawrence has been “persuaded to bring this case”.

Lawyers for Associated Newspapers are seeking to stop the cases progressing to court – while also restricting the ability of the rest of the media to report on the allegations.

In all, there are seven claims against Associated Newspapers.

In the court documents, Prince Harry said he had been targeted for information about his private relationship and alleged the unlawful activity used to obtain these stories meant “he was largely deprived of important aspects of his teenage years”.

He said friends were lost or cut off as a result and everyone became a “suspect”, arguing that the stories were written in a manner that led him to believe those close to him were the source of the information being provided to the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, allege the landline telephone at their home was illegally tapped by investigators working for the Mail’s parent company.

On Monday Associated successfully invoked the Human Rights Act to stop other media outlets identifying 73 of its journalists who are named in the court proceedings.

Its lawyers said publishing the names would breach the journalists’ right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act.

David Sherborne KC, representing Harry and other claimants at the high court, noted it was surprising to see a newspaper that has campaigned for press freedom object to the publication of the names.

“They say different rules apply to their journalists suspected of wrongdoing, as opposed to others suspected of wrongdoing.”

Associated Newspapers is attempting to stop the cases going to trial on two separate grounds. First, it alleges that the claims are “stale” because the seven individuals waited too long to file their legal paperwork – essentially arguing that the individuals must have had reasonable suspicion that they were potential victims more than six years ago.

Second, its lawyers claim that key parts of the evidence come from confidential material submitted to the 2011 Leveson inquiry into the culture of the British media. They say this was then obtained by an unknown individual from the inquiry’s internal systems, breaching the terms on which the information was provided.

While most of the claims that British courts have dealt with at the Sun, News of the World, and Mirror focus on voicemail interception – also known as phone hacking – the allegations against the Mail group go much further and rely on the supposed work of private investigators.

Among the allegations against the Mail’s parent company are that individuals working for its newspapers illegally intercepted voicemail messages, listened into live landline calls, obtained medical records by deception or “blagging”, and even commissioned the breaking and entry into private property.

An Associated Newspapers spokesperson said a “private investigator whose ‘confessions’ form a key element” of the case has since provided a sworn statement that he was not “commissioned or instructed” to carry out any illegal work for either Mail title.

They added that while the “Mail’s admiration for Baroness Lawrence remains undimmed, we are profoundly saddened that she has been persuaded to bring this case … The Mail remains hugely proud of its pivotal role in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence. Its famous ‘Murderers’ front page triggered the Macpherson report”.

The spokesperson said: “Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, vigorously denies all the claims against it.”

Ladybbird · 09-12-23, 03:30

Prince Harry Loses Latest Stage of Legal Battle Against Mail on Sunday as Judge Refuses Dukes' Request For Case to be Decided Without a Public Trial

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article about his PR aides. Asked court to rule that newspaper could not use defence of 'honest opinion'

Daily Mail 9 DEC 2023

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to 'spin' a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection.

He asked the High Court to rule that the newspaper could not use a legal defence of 'honest opinion', and for a judge to rule in his favour without the need for a trial.

But the judge ruled that Associated Newspapers - publisher of The Mail on Sunday (TMOS) and the Daily Mail - had a 'real prospect' of demonstrating that statements issued on Harry's behalf were misleading, and refused his requests.

Prince Harry today lost the latest stage of a libel battle over claims he had attempted to mislead the public

High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the newspaper had 'a real prospect of succeeding in demonstrating also that an honest person could have held the opinion that the Claimant [the Duke] was responsible for attempting to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position'.

He refused the Duke's request for the case to be decided without a public trial, and for newspaper's defence of 'honest opinion' to be thrown out.

The judge said: 'The honest opinion defence is fundamental to the protection of freedom of expression under English law.'

Harry, 39, launched libel action against TMOS over an article published in February 2022, about his legal action against the Home Office.

He applied for a judicial review against the Home Office after the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, decided he was no longer entitled to automatic police protection after he and wife Meghan stepped down as working members of the Royal Family.

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to 'spin' a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to 'spin' a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection

TMOS published an exclusive article in January 2022 which reported that Harry had threatened the Government with legal action unless his publicly-funded security protection was continued.

A Press statement was then issued on his behalf, saying he had offered to pay for police protection for him and his family when they were in Britain, but that the offer was refused.

In a February 2022 article, TMOS reported that no such offer to pay had been made to Ravec or included in his lawyers' 'pre-action' letters to the Home Office.

The newspaper said Harry's PR advisers had briefed journalists from other media outlets, saying the Duke had offered 'to pay personally for UK police protection' and remained willing to do so.

It said his 'spin doctors swung into action' and that his aides had tried to influence coverage of the story, adding that such conduct was 'ironic given the Prince now has a role with a Silicon Valley firm tackling 'misinformation' online.'

Harry launched legal action for libel, claiming the article was 'an attack on his honesty and integrity' and could undermine his charity work and his efforts to tackle misinformation online.

TMOS contested the claim, and said its article expressed an honest opinion and did not cause 'serious harm' to his reputation.

In today's ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that Harry claims he raised concerns about security and offered to personally finance the cost of security at a meeting with his grandmother, the late Queen, his father and his brother William at Sandringham in January 2020.

But that offer was not included in later correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, although Harry maintains he raised it with him personally.

The judge said TMOS was entitled to seek to prove that Harry had not made an offer to the Government to pay for his own police protection before issuing the judicial review claim.

The newspaper has 'a real prospect' of demonstrating that the Press statement and the background briefing given to selected journalists on his behalf were not accurate, he said.

Mr Justice Nicklin said: 'There is a real prospect that the Defendant [TMOS] will succeed in demonstrating that this was a misleading description of the issues in the JR [judicial review] claim, arguably promoted because it was hoped to show the Claimant's [Harry's] JR claim in a positive light, whereas a portrayal of the JR claim as the Claimant trying to force the Government to reinstate his (taxpayer funded) State security risked his appearing in a negative light.

'I anticipate that, at trial, the Defendant [TMOS] may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of 'spinning'.

'And, the Defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public.'

He went on: 'Having now seen the sequence of events, in my judgment, the Defendant [TMOS] does have a real prospect of demonstrating that an honest person could have held the view that this was precisely what was being done on the Claimant's [Harry's] behalf.'

A hearing dealing with the consequences of Mr Justice Nicklin's ruling is expected to be held next week.

The ruling came a day after the High Court finished hearing Harry's judicial review claim that the Ravec decision to downgrade his security was 'unlawful and unfair'. A decision in that case is expected at a later date.

Ladybbird · 13-12-23, 07:20

Prince Harry Ordered to Pay £48,000 to Mail on Sunday. The Duke of Sussex Must Pay £48,447 ($60,927) in Legal Fees by 29 Dec.

The Duke of Sussex has been ordered to pay the Mail on Sunday more than £48,000 in damages after he lost an attempt to strike out part of the papers’ defence in a libel case.

Daily Mail 13 DEC 2023

LONDON — A judge ordered Prince Harry on Monday to pay nearly 50,000 pounds (more than $60,000) in legal fees to the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid for his failed court challenge in a libel lawsuit.

The Duke of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd. over an article that said Harry tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the U.K. after leaving his role as a working member of the royal family.

Justice Matthew Nicklin ruled Friday in the High Court in London that the publisher has a "real prospect" of showing that statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading and that the February 2022 article reflected an "honest opinion" and wasn’t libelous.

"The defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning,'" Nicklin wrote, in refusing to strike the honest opinion defense.

Harry has claimed the article was "fundamentally inaccurate" and the newspaper defamed him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements over efforts to challenge the governments’ decision to strip him of his security detail after he and his family moved to the U.S. in 2020.

Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, also has a lawsuit pending against the governments decision to protect him on a case-by-case basis when he visits Britain. He claims that hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless hounding by the news media threaten their safety.

Nicklin said a libel trial lasting three to four days will be scheduled between May 17 and July 31.

09-10-22, 08:09	#1
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,634 Thanks: 27,644 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	Prince Harry Must Pay Mail on Sunday £48,447 ($60,927) in Legal Fees Prince Harry Elton John Doreen Lawrence, and Others Launch Legal Action Against Daily Mail Publisher Famous Figures including Elton John accuse Associated Newspapers of ‘gross breaches of privacy’ The Guardian UK 9 OCT 2022 Sir Elton John is among several public figures taking legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail over what they call "gross breaches of privacy". The Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and actresses Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley have also filed cases against Associated Newspapers Ltd. Baroness Lawrence's son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack in 1993... The company's alleged activity includes having listening devices secretly placed inside people's cars and homes. A spokesman for ANL described the allegations as "preposterous smears". In a statement, the newspaper group said: "We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old. "These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims - based on no credible evidence - appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere." The company also publishes The Mail on Sunday and the Mail Online. Sadie Frost won damages from Mirror Group Newspapers in 2015 over phone-hacking Law firm Hamlins, which is representing Prince Harry and Frost, said in a press release that those taking action had been the victims of "abhorrent criminal activity". In the statement, Hamlins alleged that the activity included: "The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people's cars and homes "The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people's live, private telephone calls whilst they were taking place "The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information "The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception "The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation" Hamlins added: "It is apparent to these individuals that the alleged crimes listed above represent the tip of the iceberg - and that many other innocent people remain unknowing victims of similar terrible and reprehensible covert acts. "They have now therefore banded together to uncover the truth, and to hold the journalists responsible fully accountable, many of whom still hold senior positions of authority and power today." Sir Elton John's husband David Furnish is also named as one of the figures taking action against the media company. Baroness Lawrence, Hurley, Sir Elton and Furnish are being represented by law firm Gunnercooke. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have had a difficult relationship with the British press for several years - the couple have previously said they would have "zero engagement" with four major British papers, including the Daily Mail, accusing them of false and invasive coverage. The duke separately sued Associated Newspapers for libel in February over an article in the Mail on Sunday about his legal battle with the Home Office. In an initial ruling in the ongoing case, a judge said parts of the story were potentially defamatory. Last year, the duchess won the latest stage in her legal fight against the publisher over a story about a letter she sent to her father. Jonathan Coad, a media lawyer who has previously been involved in legal action against Associated Newspapers, said the allegations were even more serious than phone-hacking. "They are highly intrusive. They are means of delving into the private lives of people, and private lives which are protected by statute and the human rights act, and by the European convention on human rights. "So it is a gross invasion of privacy if these things occurred, and it would be absolutely right and proper if they did occur, that Associated Newspapers and hopefully some of their senior figures, are held to account." __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

28-03-23, 05:05	#2
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,634 Thanks: 27,644 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	UK High Court; Mail Newspapers Hacked Phones of Prince Harry Elton John & Others Lady Doreen Lawrence Claims Paper Hired Investigators to Hack Her Phone Prince Harry lost friends over Mail stories, as Elton Johns’ landline was tapped Investigator jailed for phone hacking claims Mail on Sunday paid for his information High court also hears claims against Associated Newspapers brought by Prince Harry, Elton John and Liz Hurley among others BBC 28 MAR 2023 Doreen Lawrence has claimed the Daily Mail hired private investigators to hack her phone and obtain information on her murdered son, potentially disrupting the police investigation into the racially motivated killing. Lady Lawrence now believes she “failed her murdered son” by trusting the Daily Mail during the 1990s, claiming the news outlet only campaigned for justice on behalf of Stephen Lawrence in a cynical bid to sell more newspapers. The allegations were set out in detailed documents released during an extraordinary hearing at the high court. Lawrence, the Duke of Sussex and Elton John all turned up to hear legal arguments in the cases they have brought against Associated Newspapers, the owner of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. Along with actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, and the former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes, they accuse the titles of making widespread use of illegal reporting tactics to obtain stories over more than 20 years. At Monday’s preliminary hearing in central London, lawyers for Associated Newspapers attempted to stop the claims from going to trial, where the allegations would be heard in full. At the end of proceedings Harry – who had sat at the back of the court making notes – headed straight to warmly greet Lawrence, engaging the Labour peer in conversation and chatting as they headed out of the courtroom together. Until now the Daily Mail has largely escaped the phone-hacking allegations that led to the closure of the News of the World but the newspaper now faces a major challenge that could result in serious reputational damage. The allegations relate to a period when the Daily Mail was edited by Paul Dacre, who remains a senior executive at Associated Newspapers and has been nominated for a peerage in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours. The Mail has dismissed all the claims as “preposterous smears” and is trying to stop the case going to trial on multiple grounds. The newspaper ran a long campaign to identify the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence, culminating in a front-page story accusing five individuals of murder. The paper often held up the story as an example of newspaper’s commitment to fighting for justice on behalf of those who lack a voice, recently calling its campaign a “key moment in British race relations history”. Lawrence said she now believed the campaign on behalf of her son was a cynical way to sell newspapers by appearing to be on the side of a young man killed in a racist attack. In documents filed to court, her lawyers said Lawrence “cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason”. “She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool.” Rather than campaigning due to a genuine desire to get justice for Stephen, she “now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers, and to profit”. “She wonders whether trusting the Daily Mail as she did caused her to have delayed or have failed her murdered son,” the documents say. “She asks herself whether more individuals could have been arrested, whether earlier investigations might have been more successful, and whether she could have got justice.” The documents say Lawrence now “feels a deep sense of betrayal. She finds it hard to believe the level of duplicity and manipulation that was clearly at play, knowing now as she does that the Daily Mail’s outward support for her fight to bring Stephen’s killers to justice was hollow, and worse, entirely false”. Among other claims, she alleges the Daily Mail instructed private investigators to: conduct illegal interception of her voicemail messages, tap her landline telephone, blag personal records, monitor her bank accounts and phone bills, conduct covert electronic surveillance and make corrupt payments to serving Metropolitan police officers working on her son’s murder investigations in return for confidential information. She said that to this day the Mail continued to engage in “manipulation and pretence of being on her side”. The Daily Mail strongly denies the allegations and said that they believe Lawrence has been “persuaded to bring this case”. Lawyers for Associated Newspapers are seeking to stop the cases progressing to court – while also restricting the ability of the rest of the media to report on the allegations. In all, there are seven claims against Associated Newspapers. In the court documents, Prince Harry said he had been targeted for information about his private relationship and alleged the unlawful activity used to obtain these stories meant “he was largely deprived of important aspects of his teenage years”. He said friends were lost or cut off as a result and everyone became a “suspect”, arguing that the stories were written in a manner that led him to believe those close to him were the source of the information being provided to the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, allege the landline telephone at their home was illegally tapped by investigators working for the Mail’s parent company. On Monday Associated successfully invoked the Human Rights Act to stop other media outlets identifying 73 of its journalists who are named in the court proceedings. Its lawyers said publishing the names would breach the journalists’ right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act. David Sherborne KC, representing Harry and other claimants at the high court, noted it was surprising to see a newspaper that has campaigned for press freedom object to the publication of the names. “They say different rules apply to their journalists suspected of wrongdoing, as opposed to others suspected of wrongdoing.” Associated Newspapers is attempting to stop the cases going to trial on two separate grounds. First, it alleges that the claims are “stale” because the seven individuals waited too long to file their legal paperwork – essentially arguing that the individuals must have had reasonable suspicion that they were potential victims more than six years ago. Second, its lawyers claim that key parts of the evidence come from confidential material submitted to the 2011 Leveson inquiry into the culture of the British media. They say this was then obtained by an unknown individual from the inquiry’s internal systems, breaching the terms on which the information was provided. While most of the claims that British courts have dealt with at the Sun, News of the World, and Mirror focus on voicemail interception – also known as phone hacking – the allegations against the Mail group go much further and rely on the supposed work of private investigators. Among the allegations against the Mail’s parent company are that individuals working for its newspapers illegally intercepted voicemail messages, listened into live landline calls, obtained medical records by deception or “blagging”, and even commissioned the breaking and entry into private property. An Associated Newspapers spokesperson said a “private investigator whose ‘confessions’ form a key element” of the case has since provided a sworn statement that he was not “commissioned or instructed” to carry out any illegal work for either Mail title. They added that while the “Mail’s admiration for Baroness Lawrence remains undimmed, we are profoundly saddened that she has been persuaded to bring this case … The Mail remains hugely proud of its pivotal role in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence. Its famous ‘Murderers’ front page triggered the Macpherson report”. The spokesperson said: “Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, vigorously denies all the claims against it.” __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

09-12-23, 03:30	#3
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,634 Thanks: 27,644 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	re: Prince Harry Must Pay Mail on Sunday £48,447 ($60,927) in Legal Fees Prince Harry Loses Latest Stage of Legal Battle Against Mail on Sunday as Judge Refuses Dukes' Request For Case to be Decided Without a Public Trial The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article about his PR aides. Asked court to rule that newspaper could not use defence of 'honest opinion' Daily Mail 9 DEC 2023 The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to 'spin' a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection. He asked the High Court to rule that the newspaper could not use a legal defence of 'honest opinion', and for a judge to rule in his favour without the need for a trial. But the judge ruled that Associated Newspapers - publisher of The Mail on Sunday (TMOS) and the Daily Mail - had a 'real prospect' of demonstrating that statements issued on Harry's behalf were misleading, and refused his requests. Prince Harry today lost the latest stage of a libel battle over claims he had attempted to mislead the public High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the newspaper had 'a real prospect of succeeding in demonstrating also that an honest person could have held the opinion that the Claimant [the Duke] was responsible for attempting to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position'. He refused the Duke's request for the case to be decided without a public trial, and for newspaper's defence of 'honest opinion' to be thrown out. The judge said: 'The honest opinion defence is fundamental to the protection of freedom of expression under English law.' Harry, 39, launched libel action against TMOS over an article published in February 2022, about his legal action against the Home Office. He applied for a judicial review against the Home Office after the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, decided he was no longer entitled to automatic police protection after he and wife Meghan stepped down as working members of the Royal Family. The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to 'spin' a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to 'spin' a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection TMOS published an exclusive article in January 2022 which reported that Harry had threatened the Government with legal action unless his publicly-funded security protection was continued. A Press statement was then issued on his behalf, saying he had offered to pay for police protection for him and his family when they were in Britain, but that the offer was refused. In a February 2022 article, TMOS reported that no such offer to pay had been made to Ravec or included in his lawyers' 'pre-action' letters to the Home Office. The newspaper said Harry's PR advisers had briefed journalists from other media outlets, saying the Duke had offered 'to pay personally for UK police protection' and remained willing to do so. It said his 'spin doctors swung into action' and that his aides had tried to influence coverage of the story, adding that such conduct was 'ironic given the Prince now has a role with a Silicon Valley firm tackling 'misinformation' online.' Harry launched legal action for libel, claiming the article was 'an attack on his honesty and integrity' and could undermine his charity work and his efforts to tackle misinformation online. TMOS contested the claim, and said its article expressed an honest opinion and did not cause 'serious harm' to his reputation. In today's ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that Harry claims he raised concerns about security and offered to personally finance the cost of security at a meeting with his grandmother, the late Queen, his father and his brother William at Sandringham in January 2020. But that offer was not included in later correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, although Harry maintains he raised it with him personally. The judge said TMOS was entitled to seek to prove that Harry had not made an offer to the Government to pay for his own police protection before issuing the judicial review claim. The newspaper has 'a real prospect' of demonstrating that the Press statement and the background briefing given to selected journalists on his behalf were not accurate, he said. Mr Justice Nicklin said: 'There is a real prospect that the Defendant [TMOS] will succeed in demonstrating that this was a misleading description of the issues in the JR [judicial review] claim, arguably promoted because it was hoped to show the Claimant's [Harry's] JR claim in a positive light, whereas a portrayal of the JR claim as the Claimant trying to force the Government to reinstate his (taxpayer funded) State security risked his appearing in a negative light. 'I anticipate that, at trial, the Defendant [TMOS] may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of 'spinning'. 'And, the Defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public.' He went on: 'Having now seen the sequence of events, in my judgment, the Defendant [TMOS] does have a real prospect of demonstrating that an honest person could have held the view that this was precisely what was being done on the Claimant's [Harry's] behalf.' A hearing dealing with the consequences of Mr Justice Nicklin's ruling is expected to be held next week. The ruling came a day after the High Court finished hearing Harry's judicial review claim that the Ravec decision to downgrade his security was 'unlawful and unfair'. A decision in that case is expected at a later date.

13-12-23, 07:20	#4
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,634 Thanks: 27,644 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	re: Prince Harry Must Pay Mail on Sunday £48,447 ($60,927) in Legal Fees Prince Harry Ordered to Pay £48,000 to Mail on Sunday. The Duke of Sussex Must Pay £48,447 ($60,927) in Legal Fees by 29 Dec. The Duke of Sussex has been ordered to pay the Mail on Sunday more than £48,000 in damages after he lost an attempt to strike out part of the papers’ defence in a libel case. Daily Mail 13 DEC 2023 LONDON — A judge ordered Prince Harry on Monday to pay nearly 50,000 pounds (more than $60,000) in legal fees to the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid for his failed court challenge in a libel lawsuit. The Duke of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd. over an article that said Harry tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the U.K. after leaving his role as a working member of the royal family. Justice Matthew Nicklin ruled Friday in the High Court in London that the publisher has a "real prospect" of showing that statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading and that the February 2022 article reflected an "honest opinion" and wasn’t libelous. "The defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning,'" Nicklin wrote, in refusing to strike the honest opinion defense. Harry has claimed the article was "fundamentally inaccurate" and the newspaper defamed him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements over efforts to challenge the governments’ decision to strip him of his security detail after he and his family moved to the U.S. in 2020. Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, also has a lawsuit pending against the governments decision to protect him on a case-by-case basis when he visits Britain. He claims that hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless hounding by the news media threaten their safety. *Nicklin said a libel trial lasting three to four days will be scheduled between May 17 and July 31.*

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)