New thread
i'm not wading too much in the court case with harry but i do know not to watch anything from the lens of the media harry is currently in conflict with. i don't doubt that the negative has been shared but i doubt that the other side of it has been. as much as harry is being lambasted for 'not doing well' actual court lawyers and etc said that harry did very well. he said i don't know a lot which is the truth, he shouldn't lie on the stand but i'd like to remind people that harry is one of many people speaking against the mirror group, he's just the high-profile. while he does have a mission against the british press, he's one of many of countless others who lives had been ruined. i'm glad harry has the courage not to play game in favor of good press, instead of just being good people and letting the good press follow. the british media, in cahoots with the royal family and the government are out of control, a free press is good but if the free press isn't being held to account for their own actions, then they're useless.
also, harry's lawyer did a great job at a take down of the mirror editor. who admitted in court that morgan had an 'in' with the royals. she said i don't know just as much but obviously, the media won't report on that. cowards.
anyway, what harry is doing is for the good of the public, he has everything to lose while the public has everything to gain. most people just don't care but will cry and whine when it's them being brutalized and they don't have the funds to take the press on.
video of a solicitor on bbc news about how well harry was doing
https://twitter.com/jozzzaphen/status/1666436910309425156
--------------------------------
info about mirror group saying that they got information about harry from st. james palace, once again, leaking is okay as long as you aren't brave enough to say it yourself. and if they were willing to leak about a young man, i have no doubt that they'd be willing to leak on a grown harry and his wife.
another point for harry, the mirror group asked harry about one article and why that would've been hacking or anything like that and harry pointed out that they had information about his flight details. the lawyer for the mirror group had no response for that.
--------------
https://twitter.com/NaimaALovesU/status/1666126366809501711?s=20
once again, the court lawyer saying that harry did really well. the third video is funny because the woman obliviously didn't want to hear that harry was doing well but you invited the man on tv to speak about the case.
another good point, "the dogs aren't barking here." none of the editors are coming forward to say it wasn't me. if they had good sources, they shouldn't be afraid to back that up. as he said. "the question that the judge has to ask himself is, i've got documents and evidence from the claimants but nothing from the other side to counter that." and the woman speaking quickly moves on.
https://twitter.com/saucepieces/status/1666155242117791752?s=20
---------------
as much as the media has tried their hardest to whip up hate, calls of love as harry left the courthouse https://twitter.com/IrisTheeScholar/status/1666482090638991369
-------------
another video of court lawyer talking about how good harry did, best of all, he's unbaised which some interviewers hate
https://twitter.com/blessingsmood/status/1666285773707005952?s=20
a good question of bbc question time (i think it's that)
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1666888151040679948?s=20
Ayesha Hazarika, "Prince Harry says he is being brutalized by the press.. If there was no bad practice going on, why is that so many newspaper groups have spent so much money settling these claims out of court?"
----------
Opinion | Prince Harry Is a More Interesting Prince Than We Deserved - The New York Times (https://archive.ph/hTCUr) - this is a great article. i'm glad that was highlighted that meghan faced -something other royal women has never faced and will never will racism, and xenophobia. let's not forget when meghan joined, it was on the heels of brexit, in which brits wanted to get rid of other. meghan entered a space that shouldn't have been hers to enter and when she did enter she didn't lower herself and beg for thier approval and they've never forgiven her for it. i also agree, harry needs to stop caring what happens to his uk family. if he manages to change things in the country, they benefit but he doesn't. there can be no reform when the people at the top like the status quo and don't have the courage to change it.
Rosita Sweetman: We should acclaim Harry as our prince of truth | Independent.ie (https://archive.md/2023.06.09-235325/https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/rosita-sweetman-we-should-acclaim-harry-as-our-prince-of-truth/a1934089512.html) - leveson part 2 being shelved caused much harm and allowed the press to run free
-----------------
a good article from byline on harry's case
?Missing in almost all the press coverage and commentary, ?is a context of which the judge who was watching, and who will rule in this case, is well aware. Mr Justice Fancourt will not be relying on the Mail or the Sun to inform his judgment?
"If the Mirror had a ?widespread culture' illegal information gathering, how likely was it that they were making an exception for #PrinceHarry? In other words, it might be said that it is Green who has the greatest difficulties in this case, not the prince."
Prince Harry and the press: some missing context ? Byline Investigates (https://bylineinvestigates.com/2023/06/08/prince-harry-and-the-press-some-missing-context/)
---------------
& jennie bond or whatever her name is, talking about how the palace would invite the tabloids in.
https://twitter.com/sharlen11276366/status/1665999153279774720?s=20
and this reminds me of mark bollad instead of standing up for harry, he fudged timelines and turned a story about harry into a positive for Charles. worked out for everyone but the traumatized harry. mark bollad was in charge of the camilla rehab image. bottom line: it's wild that people who rarely stood up for harry are upset that he's standing up for himself, his wife, kids and the public and expecting him to be whipped for them, thankful for it and to stay silent.
-----------
?What I saw was someone who was very cool, very calm. Answered the questions that were put to him?I think he?s done exactly what he set out to do which is to make the case that there was a huge amount of intrusion. Some of it may have been done lawfully, a lot of it?unlawfully?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-08/prince-harry-exposes-huge-amounts-of-intrusion-by/102454656
-----------------
Caroline Flacks mum, speaking up and supporting Harry. Someone you can't claim is in it for the fame and the money. She lost her daughter to the British Media.
https://twitter.com/PaganTrelawney/status/1666757860628234241?s=20
https://twitter.com/Cromwell606/status/1666729154589360129?s=20
-----------
David Yelland is named in prince Harry's lawsuit as one of the people who must have been aware of the illegal targeting of Princess Diana. Yesterday he was exposed as one of the people alongside Piers Morgan who were invited to Buckingham Palace to receive briefings.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyAzgR3WYAIOERB?format=jpg&name=large)
-------------------
?A lot of journalists, senior news editors, and in fact, publishers aren?t holding our public politicians and Royal Family to account. They?re holding them to ransom. And, that?s the wrong shift of power.? #PrinceHarryVsMGN
https://twitter.com/royal_suitor/status/1666330052362145792
----------
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/06/prince-harry-takes-a-stand-for-us-all-if-theyre-supposedly-policing-society-who-on-earth-is-policing-them/
That is a wonderful group of linked sources that you have posted, change. Thank you so much for these!
And absolutely it?s forgotten that the fact that why most of the British newspapers are seemingly contemptuous of Pr Harry?s demeanour and testimony in Court has everything to do with the fact that he is suing their newspaper group bosses in his anti hacking, illegal information gathering cases in London. It?s certainly got very little to do with balanced and unbiased reporting. Few of those reporting are lawyers anyway. I?ve posted a couple of BBC reports on the Court proceedings here myself and I do find them fair and balanced.
And it?s so good that the newspaper group?s lawyers are being forced to concede in Court that these separated royal Courts do leak on other royals for their own betterment and to make other royals look bad, even their own close relatives. Many royal watchers have known this for decades. Now it?s coming out into the light of day at long last.
I've yet to read an explanation as to how 'leaking' a negative story about royal X, improves the image of royal Y.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 11, 2023, 12:07:38 PM
I've yet to read an explanation as to how 'leaking' a negative story about royal X, improves the image of royal Y.
Look at what happened at the time of Camilla?s rehabilitation by Bolland, when Charles?s reputation was at rock bottom He planted stories about other members of the RF including Charles?s own sons, Not only them however, but Charles?s siblings as well, to such an extent that Charles had to sack him, as his siblings complained to the Queen. However Charles, and especially Camilla, couldn?t do without him, so he was reinstated.
And it was well known that Charles?s staff were quite willing that Harry be thrown to the wolves if William?s reputation needed saving. William was at the Rattlebones pub near Highgrove plenty of times when under age drinking and cannabis smoking was going on.
It worked in the 90's but with social media (which will topple all media outlets) and figuratively getting caught with the the pants down 21's century is a whole different ball game.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 11, 2023, 12:07:38 PM
I've yet to read an explanation as to how 'leaking' a negative story about royal X, improves the image of royal Y.
Curry did summed it up well, they turned the story into a positive for Charles. Not caring about the damage that would be done to his damaged son. The human teenage boy didn't matter. There is also the method of leaking a story about another royal, to stop stories about another. It helps the image of royal Y. Because the media won't talk about what royal Y is doing as long as they information on royal X.
Quote from: Curryong on June 11, 2023, 11:53:21 AM
That is a wonderful group of linked sources that you have posted, change. Thank you so much for these!
And absolutely it?s forgotten that the fact that why most of the British newspapers are seemingly contemptuous of Pr Harry?s demeanour and testimony in Court has everything to do with the fact that he is suing their newspaper group bosses in his anti hacking, illegal information gathering cases in London. It?s certainly got very little to do with balanced and unbiased reporting. Few of those reporting are lawyers anyway. I?ve posted a couple of BBC reports on the Court proceedings here myself and I do find them fair and balanced.
And it?s so good that the newspaper group?s lawyers are being forced to concede in Court that these separated royal Courts do leak on other royals for their own betterment and to make other royals look bad, even their own close relatives. Many royal watchers have known this for decades. Now it?s coming out into the light of day at long last.
Np and thank you. I didn't think that views would make it out to the wider forum and public. I have more that I'm gathering from a post. Most recently, news that Rebecca English (who has confirmed that she has recived messages from Kate via Whatsapp, no shady things there (not) ) that she paid a private eye to get information on Harry's girlfriend, including flight details. Chelsy tried to get around it by being on stand-by for a flight and paying in cash but......it didn't work. Harry's lawyers read these details in court.
I forgot to include this but it was a wonderful line from Harry.
"There?s a difference between public interest - and what interests the public?
The excuse of public interest is so often used against Harry but he's right. Not everything is public interest.
Overall, Harry did well on the stand, he's one of many but the most high-profile. I'm glad that he has the courage to stand up. I'm not happy that those he's went to bat for on the record, his father, his step-mother, his brother, his sister-in-law who couldn't once do the bare minimum of "racism is bad" might benefit from press reform on his back and the back of those who won't bow down to the tabloids. But it is, what it is.
Anywoo, I'm also glad it's on the record that instead of stepping in, parenting and helping him, they leaked about him as it pleased them.
Quote from: changemhysoul on June 11, 2023, 11:35:35 PM
Curry did summed it up well, they turned the story into a positive for Charles. Not caring about the damage that would be done to his damaged son. The human teenage boy didn't matter. There is also the method of leaking a story about another royal, to stop stories about another. It helps the image of royal Y. Because the media won't talk about what royal Y is doing as long as they information on royal X.
Np and thank you. I didn't think that views would make it out to the wider forum and public. I have more that I'm gathering from a post. Most recently, news that Rebecca English (who has confirmed that she has recived messages from Kate via Whatsapp, no shady things there (not) ) that she paid a private eye to get information on Harry's girlfriend, including flight details. Chelsy tried to get around it by being on stand-by for a flight and paying in cash but......it didn't work. Harry's lawyers read these details in court.
I forgot to include this but it was a wonderful line from Harry.
"There?s a difference between public interest - and what interests the public?
The excuse of public interest is so often used against Harry but he's right. Not everything is public interest.
Overall, Harry did well on the stand, he's one of many but the most high-profile. I'm glad that he has the courage to stand up. I'm not happy that those he's went to bat for on the record, his father, his step-mother, his brother, his sister-in-law who couldn't once do the bare minimum of "racism is bad" might benefit from press reform on his back and the back of those who won't bow down to the tabloids. But it is, what it is.
Anywoo, I'm also glad it's on the record that instead of stepping in, parenting and helping him, they leaked about him as it pleased them.
Like Harry leaking about his family? Oh, i?m sorry it doesn?t count as leaking when you?re talking about your ?truth? :laugh10: :laugh10: Especially when you?re making millions out of it. Very noble indeed. :laugh10: :laugh10:
Quote from: Ayse on June 12, 2023, 08:40:22 AM
Like Harry leaking about his family? Oh, i?m sorry it doesn?t count as leaking when you?re talking about your ?truth? :laugh10: :laugh10: Especially when you?re making millions out of it. Very noble indeed. :laugh10: :laugh10:
I?m unsure if this is suppose to be some sort of ?gotcha? to me but I?ve already explained many times that I respect Harry more for saying what he has to say with his chest and playing the games his family invented without being a coward and leaking to the media.
He?s playing the game that he was taught, the only difference is he?s doing in the face instead of trying to be regal in the front and then running to the daily mail in the back.
The royals made their bank off him and his family pr and he made money.
So, laugh if you want. I?ve made my position clear. The RF don?t have the right to be upset that he?s doing what they do and that he has the courage to say it with his chest.
Quote from: changemhysoul on June 12, 2023, 12:58:28 PM
I?m unsure if this is suppose to be some sort of ?gotcha? to me but I?ve already explained many times that I respect Harry more for saying what he has to say with his chest and playing the games his family invented without being a coward and leaking to the media.
He?s playing the game that he was taught, the only difference is he?s doing in the face instead of trying to be regal in the front and then running to the daily mail in the back.
The royals made their bank off him and his family pr and he made money.
So, laugh if you want. I?ve made my position clear. The RF don?t have the right to be upset that he?s doing what they do and that he has the courage to say it with his chest.
Well, as long as he's doing it with the courage then. It doesn't make him a least bit of a hypocrite. Respect my privacy but don't mind me invading yours. Protect my children oh but it's okey if i talk about yours. Harry had the audacity to talk about the future of William's children. I could only imagine the fury if William had uttered a single word about Harry's children. Look i get Harry needs money to live his Hollywood lifestyle and he doesn't have anything to do but sell his royal life. Just don't try to make it anything other than this. There's nothing noble or brave about exploiting your family .Then you become the laugh stock you are now.
Harry in his legal action 100% blamed the press, 0% the palace
But yeah all his grievances is 100% everyone else, he is perfect.
Mentioning Charles in this team Sussex legal action is a fantasy. Harry did not blame his father in any of the 33 articles. The 33 articles by the defence was proved taken from originator (other media outlets) or Harry's own press secretary. Harry said under oath that the palace operates to protect him, hence he finds the media suspicious.
From the Guardian. Comments from the judge on certain editors and journalists.
During Tuesday?s hearing, Mr Justice Fancourt listed the names of more than two dozen people he felt could have been brought before him, ?in no particular order?, in the case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN); the publisher of the Daily and Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People.
?There?s a question in my mind whether any of the individuals on my list could and should have given evidence.? They included the former Daily Mirror editor Morgan and Neil Wallis, the former People editor.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...given-evidence
Referring to that pair in particular, he said they ?relatively recently had a lot to say about this matter outside of court?.
Piers Morgan gave evidence during the Leveson inquiry.
This new case, the Judge will make inferences, which would be a conclusion to the would have, should have.
Judge in phone hacking trial asks whether Piers Morgan 'should have given evidence'
Ahead of closing submissions in the case, Mr Justice Fancourt said Morgan and former editor of The People newspaper Neil Wallis "relatively recently had a lot to say about this matter outside of court".
Judge in phone hacking trial asks whether Piers Morgan 'should have given evidence' | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/judge-in-phone-hacking-trial-asks-whether-piers-morgan-should-have-given-evidence-12906464?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter)
QuoteAhead of closing submissions in the case, Mr Justice Fancourt listed out more than two dozen names, including the former Daily Mirror editor, "in no particular order".
He added that Morgan and former editor of The People newspaper Neil Wallis "relatively recently had a lot to say about this matter outside of court".
Mr Justice Fancourt said questions had also been raised about why "three or four associates of the Duke of Sussex" had not given evidence.
Today's ruling in Prince Harry's case against The Sun. The phone hacking claims have been dismissed, but the case could go to trial next year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66322279
QuoteThe Duke of Sussex is to take The Sun's publisher to court over claims it used illegal methods to gather information on him.
Prince Harry's case could go to trial in the High Court next year after a judge ruled on Thursday that parts of his claim can proceed.
While his allegations of some illegal methods will go to trial, a judge dismissed his phone-hacking claims.
News Group Newspapers (NGN) has denied Harry's allegations.
Prince Harry has alleged that journalists and private investigators working for The Sun and now-defunct News of the World used unlawful methods to obtain information about him.
The latest round of the royal's battle with the UK tabloid press revolved around at what point Harry knew enough about the alleged methods used against him in order to sue.
Under UK law, claimants usually have six years after a privacy breach in which to take action, which is relevant because some of the evidence Harry was relying on went back to the mid-1990s.
Lawyers for NGN have argued that he waited too long to bring the claim, and said it should therefore be dismissed.
But the court previously heard Harry claim that a "secret agreement" was struck between Buckingham Palace and the newspaper company which had prevented him taking legal action sooner.
In March 2023, Harry said in a witness statement that a deal between royal aides and senior executives at NGN stipulated he should delay any legal action against the company, at which time privacy breaches would be admitted or settled with an apology.
He relied on the supposed agreement to explain why he had not brought his claim years earlier, and to refute NGN's defence that he had waited too long to seek damages.
Lawyer's for NGN have previously disputed the existence of any secret agreement, describing it as "Alice in Wonderland stuff".
Now a judge has ruled that some of Harry's claim can proceed to trial, but has dismissed the parts which relate to phone-hacking.
Mr Justice Fancourt said Harry's amended case submitted earlier this year - which was reliant on the existence of the agreement to explain why he had not taken legal action over alleged phone-hacking sooner - "did not reach the necessary threshold of plausibility and cogency".
He said Harry knew about phone-hacking at the News of the World by 2012, and so should have sued within six years of that year.
A spokesperson for NGN called the ruling a "significant victory" for the company.
They said: "In arguing his case, the Duke of Sussex had alleged a 'secret agreement' existed between him/Buckingham Palace and NGN which stopped NGN from asserting that the Duke's claim had been brought too late.
"The judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, found his claims in relation to the alleged 'secret agreement' were not plausible or credible.
"It is quite clear there was never any such agreement and it is only the Duke who has ever asserted there was."
But the judge ruled that there should be a trial around other alleged methods used to get information about Harry, identified in the ruling as "blagging of confidential information from third parties, and instructing private investigators to do these or other unlawful acts".
The judge said Harry had a "realistically arguable" case that he did not and could not know enough about any use of the methods back in September 2013, the point at which NGN argue that his six-year window to bring a claim began.
Harry says he did not have enough information to bring a claim until 2018.
Thursday's ruling does not take a position on whether Harry waited too long to bring a valid claim, only that "it is not sufficiently clear at this stage that it was issued too late" and should be decided at trial.
The trial will feature "many other" claimants, including actor Hugh Grant, and is due to start in January 2024.
Harry's legal action against the Sun is one of three major claims he is making against the publishers of British tabloids.
He gave unprecedented testimony in court last month as part of his claim against the Mirror Group, and is also attempting to sue the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday over alleged breaches of privacy.
^ I'm sure Harry and his lawyers are aware of the 'double egde sword' with the part of 'can go to trial' = he can trial ''ex journalists and ex private investigators'', basically he will be questioning ByLine Times/ByLine Investigates owner/personnel.
IMO the yes he can part is more a blow than a win, taking into consideration that double edge swords have both positive and negative effects; the positive is he can go to trial about 'them', the negative he/lawyers actually used 'them' as their own witnesses and it turned out in the hearing 'negative' .
EDIT TO ADD: Imagine yourself asking someone to help you. That someone (s) say yes. Then months later, that someone that helped you, you can officially by law trial, litigate and examine that someone. This example is to put it simple of what the Judge is allowing H to do.
Here is the official website the Court and Tribunals Judiciary
Free download for Judgement summary
Duke Of Sussex -v- News Group Newspapers - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/duke-of-sussex-v-news-group-newspaper/)
For further clarification to my above post
The Judge ''He may proceed with a claim for unlawful information gathering'' = the ex journalists/ex private investigators who were fired, jailed, penalized by law during the Leveson. These are the people that during this actual 2023 hearing H used.
IF H decides to go to trial, as the Judge says he ''may'', but can withdraw, it will be interesting the decision he will take, if he decides to go ahead 🍿
Harry has been given permission to proceed with part of his legal case if he wishes. Of course a judge isn?t going to instruct him that it is/isn?t advisable to proceed to trial. Harry will consult with his legal team and then will proceed or not, depending on what decision he comes to based on advice.
To infer that he will inevitably lose any case if he proceeds is incorrect. If the Judge felt there wasn?t a case to answer then he wouldn?t have given permission to proceed.
And when it comes to the vile and disgusting British tabloid newspaper groups vs all the claimants in these cases, and there are dozens, I know which side I?ll be barracking for and it?s not the swollen, allegedly corrupt and extremely greedy tabloid Press.
I didn't infer he will lose. My comment has to do with double edge sword of the positives and negatives. He used people to favor his hearing, the same people he may now put on trial, hence my mutliple examples to understand what his only option of to be or not to be is.
The media is there to do their job, H is a public person. Of course there are many angles the media can use with whichever decision he decides to take. IF H doesn't know this, his lawyers will also need to prepare him for it (I expect with a yes or a no the same result, 10 or more articles per media outlet with the different angles of journalism). From H has moneys to burn, to H is going to take trial the Sun, BUT ultimately due to the fact that during the Leveson the ex J and PI (the ones H used now) were the ones who by law and proof - they were the ones who ultimately had the 'know how' of breaking the law got penalized. Yes The NOTW closed because of the hacking proof, they paid more than 300 claimants, including Prince William, H had his opportunity then, but it's closed and 2023 thrown out, no moneys to gain. Basically if H wants to harm The Sun, H would have to prove that i.e. The Sun (an official invoice with The Sun's logo, company registration number, their fiscal number in the invoice) paid these people to get information unlawfully rather than bank transfers from 'one individual person' (Journalist) to 'another individual person' (Private Investigator), which was the methodology then. That the journalist then proceeded to write an article based on this made the NOTW close due to the payments they had to do to the 300 persons - this is the part H missed out and has been thrown out, he can't claim this part.
Prince Harry should hear the judgement to his most recent legal action against The Mirror and other tabloids soon as the Court's summer recess comes to an end.
Prince Harry Has U.K. Press Judgement Day Coming Down the Line (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-uk-press-judgement-day-coming-tabloids-1828490)
This will be interesting.....
Cameron Walker
@CameronDLWalker
Prince Harry's lawsuit against News Group Newspapers' tabloids (the Sun and now defunct News of the World) is likely to go to trial in early 2025, the High Court in London has heard. The Prince is suing NGN over alleged invasions of privacy from the mid-1990s until 2016.
WOW, HM Court and Tribunal Services pushed it to 2025.
Quote from: wannable on October 10, 2023, 01:01:20 PM
Cameron Walker
@CameronDLWalker
Prince Harry's lawsuit against News Group Newspapers' tabloids (the Sun and now defunct News of the World) is likely to go to trial in early 2025, the High Court in London has heard. The Prince is suing NGN over alleged invasions of privacy from the mid-1990s until 2016.
WOW, HM Court and Tribunal Services pushed it to 2025.
There?s been a logjam in British Courts since the start of the Covid pandemic. Problems with delays in going to trial have been around for at least a decade before that for both civil and Criminal trials, but the pandemic pushed everything to a snail?s pace. It?s got nothing to do with Charles or the Courts being in his name at all. We have a similar system to the British one and cases are prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. We here have been suffering major delays as well, especially in the Higher Courts,
Performance Tracker 2022/23: Spring update - Criminal courts | Institute for Government (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/performance-tracker-2022-23/criminal-courts#:~:text=While%20the%20number%20of%20cases),Covid%20levels%20for%20several%20years.
Harry's case is not a criminal case.
For more information, the backlog WAS with courts specifically with Criminal cases - SOME buildings.
Reducing the backlog in criminal courts
Inquiry
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated a growing backlog of cases waiting to be tried in the criminal courts system. During the first national lockdown, HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) closed some court buildings, and suspended all jury trials. Since then, courts have reopened, but national guidelines for social distancing mean a reduced number of hearings can be held, and the backlog has steadily increased.
This backlog has had significant impacts on defendants, some of whom are held in custody on remand, and on victims and witnesses, many of whom are waiting months and years to have even extremely serious cases heard.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMCTS are implementing a COVID-19 recovery programme to tackle the growing backlog. These efforts will have impacts across the whole criminal justice system.
The Committee will question senior officials at the MoJ and HMCTS on how they are managing the criminal case backlog, including their understanding of demand and capacity in the criminal courts, the effectiveness of their COVID-19 recovery programme, and their work across the criminal justice system to understand and plan for demand which is expected to increase further as thousands of new police officers are recruited.
If you have evidence on these issues, submit it here by Monday 6 December 2021.
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1521/reducing-the-backlog-in-criminal-courts/publications/
Proper information in HM UK Government rather than the above link of performance tracker - which is not entirely incorrect but a gov site beats an org site.
I know very well that Harry?s case is a civic one. And as for backlog, all the good intentions in the world from authorities aren?t going to produce judges and senior QC?s needed from outer space for both civic and criminal cases. It?s not so much the buildings, it?s the actual courtrooms.
When I lived in England in the 1980s and 1990s there were what most people would regard as long delays in the court systems for both criminal and civic cases. And from what I have heard from the wide variety of people I am still in contact with there, the situation has not improved much. The Covid crisis instead lengthened the delays in BOTH jurisdictions. And it is the same in Aus.
And there are delays in various civil proceedings which Covid has hindered.
Justice secretary must ?get to grips? with escalating civil court delays - Legal Futures (https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/justice-secretary-must-get-to-grips-with-escalating-civil-court-delays#:~:text=It%20said%20the%20latest%20MoJ),third%20from%202019%20to%202023.
And in spite of the WOW in your first post on this subject, Charles and the Crown do not have anything to do with delaying or postponing ANY cases in England or Wales in either jurisdiction.
I only DID an objective truth. Both links especially the government UK link is about Criminal Courts, which as far as I know Harry nor anyone related to his case is in Jail waiting for the criminal courts to be updated. Anyway, IF anyone is truthfully and really interested in reading the link I placed. When you scroll down, it's not accepting anymore inquiries because they are 'up dated'.
National statistics
Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2023
Published 1 June 2023
1. Main Points
Increase in County Court claims, driven by money claims Compared to the same period in 2022, County Court claims from January to March 2023 were up 8% to 443,000, the highest volume since Q1 2020. Of these, 371,000 (84%) were money claims (up 9%). Compared to the same quarter in 2019 (pre-covid baseline), County Court claims were down 18%.
^ Why am I not surprised that people sue for moneys :hehe: :wink:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023
Inside Meghan Markle's Court Showdown With Half Sister (https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-court-sister-samantha-markle-1837217)
QuoteMeghan Markle is two weeks out from a make or break fight to get her half sister's libel lawsuit thrown out.
Samantha Markle sued the Duchess of Sussex over her Oprah Winfrey interview and comments made in her Netflix series Harry & Meghan.
Meghan's lawyers have asked the judge to dismiss the case without a trial, which would allow the royal to swerve the need to submit to a deposition, to testify and to potentially release private messages.
The two parties will go head-to-head in a high stakes hearing listed for November 8 at 1.30 p.m. ET, at the Federal Court in Tampa, Florida.
I?m putting this in the Team Sussex thread as it is a win, so far, for Harry and his fellow litigants.
?The Duke of Sussex can go ahead with claims against Associated Newspapers of unlawfully obtaining information, as a court ruling opens the way for a trial.
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday publishers wanted to stop the case, arguing claims of getting "information by deception" were out of time.
But a judge has decided the case, involving Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants, can proceed.?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67122719
It's a 'go ahead' for ''trial'', which may go whichever way depending on proof. Speculation is rife on both sides. BUT the pressure is more towards the individuals to show the proof - hence the go ahead. It's a double edge sword. I think like some people in lawyer.com said, the Judge wants to put them on the stand (the trial) to see what they have.
Quote from: wannable on November 10, 2023, 07:24:06 PM
It's a 'go ahead' for ''trial'', which may go whichever way depending on proof. Speculation is rife on both sides. BUT the pressure is more towards the individuals to show the proof - hence the go ahead. It's a double edge sword. I think like some people in lawyer.com said, the Judge wants to put them on the stand (the trial) to see what they have.
This is a Civil Case and the burden of proof is different.
https://jbsolicitors.com.au/burden-of-proof-in-civil-cases/#:~:text=The%20burden%20of%20proof%20in%20a%20civil%20case%20differs%20from,a%20higher%20level%20of%20certainty.
The burden of proof in a civil case differs from that in a criminal case. The balance of probabilities standard prevails. This means that a party must present evidence that is more probable than not. Whereas, the criminal standard ? ?beyond a reasonable doubt?? necessitates a higher level of certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that the prosecution must persuade the jury that the evidence presented at trial leaves no other possible plausible explanation.
However, the balance of probabilities standard allows judges to:
Weigh the evidence; and
Decide which party has presented the more convincing case.
This standard ensures fairness and prevents the excessive burden that a higher standard may impose in civil matters.
The ''acusations'' have to be proved by the party (Harry and Co), like they said from listening devices 'inside a car' to the tapping of phones. I am 99% sure the police will be involved. As I said and agree with the convo in lawyer.com it is a double edge sword.
The words the lawyer.com use is ''there is a catch'', meaning a complication, meaning the proof of the accusations.
He is a barrister in the UK
He explains it very well and is a member of lawyer.com
I recommend to watch and listen
Prince Harry's Case Proceeds, with a CATCH! - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjti2tVx9M)
Quote from: wannable on November 10, 2023, 07:55:16 PM
He is a barrister in the UK
He explains it very well and is a member of lawyer.com
I recommend to watch and listen
Prince Harry's Case Proceeds, with a CATCH! - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjti2tVx9M)
That barrister is English and is an anti Sussex proponent. He has had a go at Meghan several times, and she has won her UK case. And as far as Meghan vs Samantha is concerned, I listen and watch Emily Baker who is an American attorney and completely neutral and fair.
Samantha has had one attorney withdraw from the case, in April. She and the lawyer fundamentally disagreed on how to proceed. She and her team have had to twice amend her defamation case. If you think that looks good for her, we?ll, we will see.
You are dismissing a UK Barrister because he gives his opinion in his ''other'' youtube channel that is unrelated to his Lawyer channel, IOW his opinion about Oprah and racism, titles, branding.
IF anyone has seen his ''other'' youtube video blackbelt barrister secrets, you would know he is very balanced (IOW really and truly watched it 100 percent ALL, I would know it immediately if one has lied or faked it), he does point out the multiple changes (from the couple) of retelling their story and/or the differences between the couple, so many versions by themselves. And he does it with proof from both the horses mouth. That a fan does not like that to be pointed out is another story.
In his law channel, he shows the Judge's three page decision of trial and what is 'thrown out' and what can ''partially'' proceed with the ''catch''. He is not inventing fake news like the press. And yes, there is a huge catch not for Associated Press but for the Individuals who are the initiators of the hearing. Watch and listen carefully to the link I posted, there is no two ways about it. It's in the court INK.
Quote from: wannable on November 10, 2023, 11:18:11 PM
You are dismissing a UK Barrister because he gives his opinion in his ''other'' youtube channel that is unrelated to his Lawyer channel, IOW his opinion about Oprah and racism, titles, branding.
IF anyone has seen his ''other'' youtube video blackbelt barrister secrets, you would know he is very balanced (IOW really and truly watched it 100 percent ALL, I would know it immediately if one has lied or faked it), he does point out the multiple changes (from the couple) of retelling their story and/or the differences between the couple, so many versions by themselves. And he does it with proof from both the horses mouth. That a fan does not like that to be pointed out is another story.
In his law channel, he shows the Judge's three page decision of trial and what is 'thrown out' and what can ''partially'' proceed with the ''catch''. He is not inventing fake news like the press. And yes, there is a huge catch not for Associated Press but for the Individuals who are the initiators of the hearing. Watch and listen carefully to the link I posted, there is no two ways about it. It's in the court INK.
In other words he is anti Sussex and completely biased. I have watched him twice and have been unimpressed. I?m certainly not watching him ever again. He believed Meghan was going to lose her case against the Fail. Well, she didn?t. She won. Of course you think he?s balanced. He?s anti Harry and Meghan and so are you.
?Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled Friday the case can go forward, writing the claims ?have a real prospect of succeeding? and ?Associated has not been able to deliver a ?knockout blow? to the claims of any of these claimants,? as quoted by the Associated Press.?
You seem to think that judges are just ruling for Harry and the other litigants just for fun. If he felt there was no merit whatsoever in their case he would have ruled against them.
The couple biased themselves. That happens when you change your story several times.
The conversation about Denmark's CP Frederik has been moved to the thread linked below.
The Danish Royal Family General News and Chat (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=89889.0)
The Duke of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers Limited - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-duke-of-sussex-v-associated-newspapers-limited-2/)
Tommorow, then the 10th, 11th and the 12th December.
RE: Harry vs The Daily Mail for stating that Harry had not ''initially'' in any document stated he wanted to pay for taxpayer security.
And they think the UK is unsafe.............LOL........LOL! Look where they are living, even in a protected community does anyone think they are 100% safe these days......California of all places. Even this city here, it is not safe, I still live my life yet times have made me change the way I live it now. Harry is very delusional or is he using this as an excuse to get something else in the UK? Yes, Charles, you and Diana did Harry no favors in spoiling him rotten......look what it produced today.
BREAKING: Prince Harry loses legal challenge in libel claim against Mail on Sunday
Don't think he is a happy prince now, he did not get his own way which is a damn good thing. He really needs to learn about life as an ordinary human being as does his wife, Prince does not hold any value in with the ordinary people of the US.
Late Queen wanted Prince Harry?s security to continue, letter reveals (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/08/keeping-sussexes-safe-paramount-importance-late-queen-aide/)
Sir Edward Young, the Queen?s PS wrote to RAVEC explaining what had been decided between the Queen and her grandson at the Sandringham summit.
The late Queen Elizabeth II considered it ?imperative? that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex kept ?effective security? after leaving the working Royal family, court documents have revealed.
Her most senior aide told a Home Office committee that keeping the Sussexes safe was ?of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family? as he put forward a case for their continuing security, a letter has revealed.
Sir Edward Young wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill, the then Cabinet Secretary, after the Sandringham summit of January 2020 to explain what had been decided by the late Queen and her grandson.
The letter, included in newly published court documents, reveals how Sir Edward ? writing on behalf of the Palace in his role as the late Queen?s private secretary ? made the case for the Sussexes? continued ?effective security? as they left the working Royal family.
I am sure thatvthe late Queen would want as many family members as possible to have full security, but ultimately understood that it wasn't possible. That is why those closest to the situation cannot be the decision makers.
Quote from: TLLK on December 09, 2023, 06:30:39 AM
I am sure thatvthe late Queen would want as many family members as possible to have full security, but ultimately understood that it wasn't possible. That is why those closest to the situation cannot be the decision makers.
She wanted RAVEC and the Govt to know her wishes, however. Or Young would not have written to the Cabinet Sec expressing them.
It is never late for Harry to apologise to Sir Edward. How Youngheld his composure and tongue with the trashing plus seeing his boss die.
A doctor could testify H is not fit now though.
This letter was available to all interested parties.
Quote from: wannable on December 09, 2023, 01:09:36 PM
It is never late for Harry to apologise to Sir Edward. How Youngheld his composure and tongue with the trashing plus seeing his boss die.
A doctor could testify H is not fit now though.
This letter was available to all interested parties.
Sir Edward Young wrote to the Parliamentary Sec because he was obliged to. It was an agreement that had been formulated between all the royals at the ?Sandringham Summit.? The other senior royals had obviously agreed that Harry needed security. And so the Queen?s Private Secretary wrote the letter. His personal feelings towards Harry didn?t come into it. He was obliged, by his position at Court, to write that letter. A communication that states the Queen?s wishes about Harry?s security. If he had not done it he would have been obliged to resign.
Again I say, Sir Edward?s private feelings about the matter didn?t come into it. That however does not mean that he and other senior courtiers did not express negative feelings about the Sussexes to others at Court or that they did not act privately against the couple at times, allowing leaks to occur by others.
ReplyQuote
What are his 'personal feelings' ?
Harry personal feelings:
''The Bee''. The Duke of Sussex said Lord Young was known as ''The Bee'' thanks to his 'oval-faced and fuzzy' appearance and tendency to 'glide around with great equanimity and poise'. He added that the Private Secretary ?was so poised that people didn't fear him. Big mistake. Sometimes their last mistake.?
How many times did Harry bodyshame people in his book? for example. The above quote is the mildest, Harry went on and on...
Here's a dedicated goodbye article to Sir Edward Young
Sir Edward Young, the late Queen?s Private Secretary who riled Prince Harry, is made Permanent Lord in Waiting to King Charles | Tatler (https://www.tatler.com/article/sir-edward-young-the-late-queens-private-secretary-who-riled-prince-harry-is-made-permanent-lord-in-waiting-to-king-charles)
The judge did not say that Harry had lied about saying he was willing to pay when at the Sandringham Summit. And the judge has not seen the notes taken at the Sandringham Summit by Young or either of the others.
And no judge hearing a case before the courts in Britain can (discreetly or otherwise) ask anyone who is not appearing before them on oath any questions in reference to any case they are hearing, or indeed any case currently before UK courts. Or to provide any evidence of any kind without being on oath in a court setting. That would be completely against the law and his remit as judge and no judge or magistrate would ever do such a thing.
Maybe the Judge needs to read ALL the documents of the court case before making a decision, and Harry should show up to say He did Not lie if he thinks this is so important, why sit in Ca thinking of how to sue the Judge or someone else..they must have tons of money with these lawyer fees and they are not cheap as I well know.
Quote from: Curryong on December 10, 2023, 04:41:53 AM
The judge did not say that Harry had lied about saying he was willing to pay when at the Sandringham Summit. And the judge has not seen the notes taken at the Sandringham Summit by Young or either of the others.
And no judge hearing a case before the courts in Britain can (discreetly or otherwise) ask anyone who is not appearing before them on oath any questions in reference to any case they are hearing, or indeed any case currently before UK courts. Or to provide any evidence of any kind without being on oath in a court setting. That would be completely against the law and his remit as judge and no judge or magistrate would ever do such a thing.
Is not telling someone something lying - misinformation?
Leaving out important details to intentionally misrepresent the truth is known as lying by omission.
Curryong, many things have changed unfavorably for Harry after all the over-sharing, equate that in a court of law as 'public and notorious'.
Quote Judiciary
(c) as such, the Claimant was responsible for attempting to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling ''misinformation''.
Unquote
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Sussex-v-ANL-Judgment.pdf
Approved Judgment
Judiciary.uk
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (https://www.judiciary.uk) ? uploads ? 2023/12
2 days ago ? public role in tackling 'misinformation'. (?Prince Harry seeks judicial review after Home Office stops him.
The links are PDF latest version in chrome, so if you don't have it installed just copy/paste and it should open in whatever search engine you use.
^ Same goes with his home office case, public and notorious that the couple opened their SussexRoyal website with their own initial plan as if it were already agreed with the Monarch, as time went on they kept on deleting what was not accepted including IPP status. BUT it did say they were leaving voluntarily for their financial independence. The initial website was informed publicly to worldwide meida - public and notorious. Now he says he was forced.
Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex
Member, Aspen Commission on Information Disorder
Co-Founder, Archewell
archewell.com
Meet the Commissioners - The Aspen Institute (https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/commission-on-information-disorder/meet-the-commissioners/)
He publicly carries out information disoder himself. Why should a Judge having the knowledge, which is public and notorious ignore this aspect. The public and notorious is used by all countries worldwide in a court of law. It is the biggest evidence.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prince-harry-wins-phone-hacking-lawsuit-british-tabloid-105683981
LONDON -- LONDON (AP) ? Prince Harry won his phone hacking lawsuit Friday against the publisher of the Daily Mirror and was awarded over 140,000 pounds ($180,000) in the first of his several lawsuits against the tabloids to go to trial.
Justice Timothy Fancourt in the High Court found that phone hacking was ?widespread and habitual? at Mirror Group Newspapers over many years and private investigators ?were an integral part of the system? to gather information unlawfully. He said executives at the papers were aware of the practice and covered it up.
Fancourt found that 15 of the 33 newspaper articles in question at trial had been compiled with the help of unlawful means.
So basically 11 years ago he was offered a settlement of GBP 200,000 which he didn't accept because his brother was offered GBP 1 Million. Now he got less.
Congratulations I guess?! (He can cover partial expenses though; paying the Daily Mail and some of his lawyers work)
Congratulations to Prince Harry on this partial victory today.
Prince Harry settles phone-hacking claim with Mirror group (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68249009)
Harry has settled his claim with the Mirror group. The organisation has agreed to pay all of Harry?s legal costs throughout the case, plus 300, 000 pounds in compensation. So that?s a good little victory for Harry!
Harry on Piers Morgan, who incidentally has left his failing TV show and Murdoch, to concentrate on setting up his own TV channel, lol!
With the court case finished, Prince Harry, who is now back in the US, took aim at Piers Morgan who edited the Mirror paper between 1995 and 2004.
In a statement via his solicitor Mr Sherborne, Harry said Morgan ?knew perfectly well? what was happening when he edited the paper.
?Even his own employer realised it simply could not call him as a witness of truth at the trial.
?His contempt for the court?s ruling and his continued attacks ever since demonstrate why it was so important to obtain a clear and detailed Judgement.?
A Legal victory for Meghan in the defamation action brought by her half sister Samantha. The Florida judge said, in her 58 page summation that Meghan's statements in the Oprah interview ( including about her growing up as virtually an only child)) were 'substantially true', even if 'they could be considered defamatory in the first place'. The judge dismissed the case 'with prejudice', meaning that Samantha can't bring another adjustment.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13188117/Meghan-Markle-legal-victory-sister-Samantha-dismisses-defamation-lawsuit.html
https://people.com/meghan-markle-wins-defamation-lawsuit-brought-by-half-sister-samantha-8608087
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/515281/meghan-markle-court-victory-lawsuit-samantha-markle/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68550942
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-03-12/us-court-dismisses-defamation-case-against-meghan-markle-by-half-sister
Nobody beat Meghan,Duchess of Sussex
Samantha Markle's lawyers have just filed an appeal against the dismissal by Judge Honeywell in March of Samantha's defamation suit, so she's not giving up this hopeless quest. More chances to throw shade in Meghan's direction.
Her lawyers are going to request that the Prss of Wales give them a witness statement about what she supposedly overheard about Meghan defaming Samantha. Yes, I can just see Kate complying with that! Always great to start the day with a good belly laugh!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13288169/Samantha-Markle-Kate-Middleton-witness-meghan-lawsuit.html#:~:text=It%20was%20earlier%20reported%20that,it%20cannot%20simply%20be%20refiled.
Samantha Markle is delusional, imo. Why would Catherine, who has NEVER met or talked to her, be a witness for her? Witness for what, exactly?
Quote from: Lothwen on April 10, 2024, 02:40:05 AMSamantha Markle is delusional, imo. Why would Catherine, who has NEVER met or talked to her, be a witness for her? Witness for what, exactly?
According to the article
'On March 18, Ticktin told Wootton during an episode of his Outspoken online talk show that he felt as though the princess would be able to provide a useful witness statement in the trial.
'I felt that Catherine might have some very important light to shed on what had occurred because obviously something is really really wrong between these two.'
Ticktin is Samantha's attorney. Apparently Ticktin went rushing off to give an exclusive about consulting Kate to that disgusting grub, the ex talk show host and editor Dan Wootton, who now has a online talk show with a few thousand viewers after being kicked off his other roles.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-court-sun-verdict-royal-news-live-b2531334.html
'Prince Harry has won the latest round in his court case against the publisher of the Sun newspaper, after a High Court judge rejected an application to delay the trial.
In the latest ruling, judge dismissed NGN's request to push back the trial listed for next January, saying it would be "unsatisfactory" to delay proceedings to instead hold a narrower preliminary trial to decide if cases had been brought too late.
The Duke of Sussex alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for NGN, which also published the now-defunct News Of The World.'
Evening Standard: Journalists named in Harry's court action against publisher (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/prince-harry-elton-john-simon-hughes-doreen-lawrence-david-furnish-b1156499.html)