Sussex' claim - mostly thrown out.. Not what the beeb says

motorbiking said:
Yes the whole phone hacking scandal was appalling, but arguing that you only knew about the potential to make a claim, in 2018, when you were made aware of the issue in 2012, made him look a bit of a t*t, particularly given the language used in the ruling. He has access to the best lawyers in the world and a massive machine that meant he could easily have brought a claim within the time limits.
Click to expand...
The judge looked at the suggestion of a palace/tabloid “agreement “ and decided he was having nothing to do with it in the absence of hard unambiguous evidence, and I get that, but plenty of leeway if he had wanted to, kind of an easy get out. Yet people are convicted of murder without any physical evidence including the body

Blup
 
Sponsored Links
motorbiking said:
Yes the whole phone hacking scandal was appalling, but arguing that you only knew about the potential to make a claim, in 2018, when you were made aware of the issue in 2012, made him look a bit of a t*t, particularly given the language used in the ruling. He has access to the best lawyers in the world and a massive machine that meant he could easily have brought a claim within the time limits.
Click to expand...
Legal cases always have 2 very strong cases in opposition to each other, or they wouldn't get to court.

How would you present his case?
 
@blup Do you have a case in mind? Obviously, the hacking issue is subject to the statute of limitation, and Mr Sussex' was basically called out for his BS in para 70 to 80. That is about as close as any judge will get to saying "b**Sh**".

@carmanmemoranda - they may have claims that are very far apart, but it is nonsense to say that they are very strong. Some claims are rather weak, as was most of Mr Sussex' (if that is his proper name/title now?)

He needed evidence that a private deal was on the table and that he/his people were actively negotiating a private settlement, with real lawyers/authorised parties on both sides. Remember he made no reference to this in his witness statement and only changed his mind when he realised the claim was all but dead. He's been found to be fibbing again, a bit like his dangerous Pap taxi experience. I think this is nothing more than a PR stunt to build interest in his life to sell more books and fictional documentaries.

I think I would be concerned that I didn't make my client look like a liar, in an attempt to avoid a hard limit.
 
motorbiking said:
the hacking issue is subject to the statute of limitation, and Mr Sussex' was basically called out for his BS in para 70 to 80
Click to expand...
As the Beeb report said, which gets back to the jist of the thread.
 
Sponsored Links
Had the headline read..

Harry loses bid to bring phone hacking claim out of time and fails to convince court that he had a secret deal without ever referring to it, in the run up to his claim. The court was having none of it and saw it for the try on it was.

or perhaps one for the Sun..

Prince left humiliated when judge fails to believe he had a secret deal that he only remembered when he knew his out of time claim was dead.

but then I'm not a journalist.
 
motorbiking said:
@blup Do you have a case in mind? Obviously, the hacking issue is subject to the statute of limitation, and Mr Sussex' was basically called out for his BS in para 70 to 80. That is about as close as any judge will get to saying "b**Sh**".

@carmanmemoranda - they may have claims that are very far apart, but it is nonsense to say that they are very strong. Some claims are rather weak, as was most of Mr Sussex' (if that is his proper name/title now?)

He needed evidence that a private deal was on the table and that he/his people were actively negotiating a private settlement, with real lawyers/authorised parties on both sides. Remember he made no reference to this in his witness statement and only changed his mind when he realised the claim was all but dead. He's been found to be fibbing again, a bit like his dangerous Pap taxi experience. I think this is nothing more than a PR stunt to build interest in his life to sell more books and fictional documentaries.

I think I would be concerned that I didn't make my client look like a liar, in an attempt to avoid a hard limit.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that if he has access to some of the best lawyers in the world I think they might have a little more idea on how to present his case then.
 
Read the judgement - its pretty humiliating and plenty of barristers are commenting.
 
motorbiking said:
@blup Do you have a case in mind? Obviously, the hacking issue is subject to the statute of limitation, and Mr Sussex' was basically called out for his BS in para 70 to 80. That is about as close as any judge will get to saying "b**Sh**".
Click to expand...
I don’t think an establishment judge would conclude there was an “agreement “ between the royal family snd the tabloids on such a sensitive issue without absolutely unambiguous evidence which obviously didn’t exist, so he threw that one to the sun, they will get hammered at the trial though. It was the tabloids that spun this story into the success it wasn’t.

Blup
 
It was this bit "Yet people are convicted of murder without any physical evidence including the body" I was interested in? Do you have a case in mind, or was it more of a passing comment?

It was also the timing of the agreement. It was remembered after it was obvious the case was dead, in the hope it would convince the judge that it was a reason to proceed out of time. Normal people are subject to the statute of limitation. Royal's it seem expect special rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top