Daily Mail phone hacking case

[Blue Jam]

Associated Newspapers (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail Mail On Sunday, Mail Online etc, are being sued by a group of seven public figures- Elton John, David Furnish, Doreen Lawrence, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley, former Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes and Prince Harry:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65087072

The case is getting very little coverage, possibly because the press are all in it together, and the Guardian even did a little piece asking "b-b-but whatabout social media?" and trying to argue that phone hacking is old hat and they should just let it go. It's likely that the only reason the case has been in the news at all is that
Prince Harry decided to make the Royal Courts of Justice the latest stop on the WORLDWIDE PRIVECEH TOUR and give the press an irresistable opportunity to call him a hypocrite, forcing them to cover the case.

Events at this preliminary hearing have been pretty surreal:

https://bylineinvestigates.com/2023/03/30/mail-hacking-case-final-day-judgment-reserved-after-some-surreal-moments/

Responding to the claimants' assertion that they were only able to bring the case once there was enough evidence to do so, counsel for Associated, Adrian Beltrami KC, found himself insisting at some length that they had grounds to be suspicious of his client years and years ago.

While reminding the court that Associated denied all the allegations against it, he took the judge through a catalogue of evidence, some of it from as long ago as the early 2000s, which he said might reasonably have given the claimants grounds to sue at a far earlier date.

Even as senior Associated executives told the Leveson Inquiry of 2011-12 that they had conducted internal investigations and knew for certain there had been no voicemail hacking, Mr Beltrami pointed out, the claimants – some of whom have already sued other papers for hacking – might have paid attention to numerous published claims and insinuations that Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists had broken the law.

Where the claimants now said that particular articles published about them in Mail papers give rise to the inference that illegal measures had been used, he said, nothing had prevented them drawing those inferences and taking legal action in a more timely fashion.

As an argument it may carry weight in law, but it seemed at times to come close to being an assertion from the Mail's representative in court that 'You shouldn't have believed our denials.'

The Mail's defence seems to be "Yeah, we did it, that's just what journalists do, duh. Why did it take this dozy lot so long to figure it out? It was ages ago, can't we just drop it, yeah?"

While there does seem to be a kind of statute of limitations here (six years), the argument may not wash because the claimants have good reasons to have not become suspicious earlier. Doreen Lawrence, for example, didn't suspect her phone was being hacked because at the time the Mail were campaigning for justice for her son, she was cooperating with them, they were on the same side and there was no reason to believe they'd even need to hack her phone:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/27/doreen-lawrence-claims-daily-mail-hired-investigators-to-hack-her-phone

As with the News of the World hacking Milly Dowler's voicemail, hacking the phone of a grieving mother is not a good look.

In the case of Prince Harry, he was 21 at the time and back then suing the press was something The Firm just didn't do- and thanks to Harry's book, we now know why.

A few media outlets have been trying to claim that there's a major flaw in the evidence provided by the key witness, private detective Gavin Burrows, but it's not the own the headlines suggest it is:

Prince Harry's key witness in phone hacking case denies targeting him

In a written document submitted to a preliminary hearing, Gavin Burrows strongly denied being commissioned or instructed by the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday to gather information unlawfully about Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Baroness Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley and others.

However, in an earlier statement provided in 2021, Mr Burrows appears to have made detailed admissions that he was commissioned by the Mail on Sunday to target celebrities by hacking phones and bugging cars.

At the High Court on Wednesday, during the third day of the hearing, Adrian Beltrami KC, for the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, said that in the event of a trial, the "quality" of Mr Burrow's evidence should be called into question.

Mr Beltrami said: "The difficulty with this statement of course is it is directly contradicted by a signed statement obtained by the defendant on March 8."

When asked whether Mr Burrows had been asked about the apparent contradiction, Mr Beltrami replied: "He says it's not true."

Judge Mr Justice Nicklin responded: "There's a trial point if ever I saw one."

Mr Justice Nicklin added: "From the claimants' point of view, Mr Burrows' statement of August 2021 is fairly significant."

He added that the claimants "may have to adjust their expectations" of him in light of the contradiction.

In the first statement Mr Burrows admits targeting "a large number of private individuals" over a number of years, including the Prince and Sir Elton.

He also admitted trying to unlawfully obtain private information about Hugh Grant, Carole Middleton, and Ken Livingston.

Mr Burrows' admissions included "illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening into live landline calls and obtaining private information, such as itemised phone bills or medical records".

In his second statement signed last month and submitted to the High Court as evidence, Mr Burrows retracted his original admissions.

In it he made a categorical denial of the claims made by Prince Harry and the others taking action against the media group.

Mr Burrows, the founder of a private investigation firm which has worked for international companies and law firms over the last 30 years, said in the new witness statement: "I wish to make clear that I was never instructed or commissioned by anyone at the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail to conduct unlawful information gathering on their behalf."

He added: "I was also never asked to target or conduct unlawful information gathering on any of the high-profile individuals listed above by the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail."

tl:dr: "No I never."

One final surreal twist? The 73 Mail journalists implicated can't be named for legal reasons because they're protected by the Mail's favourite bit of legislation, a little thing called The Human Rights Act:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/27/daily-mail-parent-company-invokes-human-rights-act-to-stop-naming-of-journalists

Lawyers working for the Daily Mail said publishing the names would breach the journalists' right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act. This is despite the Mail long using its editorial pages to campaign against the European-derived legislation.

Barrister David Sherborne, 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."

The judge has apparently described ANL's hopes of this case being thrown out as "optimistic" so fingers crossed it goes to trial and the Mail takes a serious hit. If not financial they may at least have to be more careful and reign it in on the hit pieces and creepy invasions of privaceh.

[TrenterPercenter]

Yep did hear about this as it did make some newshounds.  The absolute irony.

[dissolute ocelot]

It's crazy how the Sun, Mirror, and other papers have given out huge amounts of money to phone hacking victims for years, yet this isn't considered a significant scandal. People need to know what Sadie Frost is doing so badly, they don't care how the information is acquired.

You'd hope that eventually the entire British newspaper system would die as a result of contempt and indifference, but (even though the regional press is almost dead) the national newspapers are determined to get ever more loud and hateful and try and attract readers as long as it can.

[Fambo Number Mive]

That Guardian piece is laughable. Comments off, of course.

I imagine phone hacking is still going on by some media outlets. Phone hacking and issues with social media should be tackled, it's not either/or

[idunnosomename]

Fuck me i despise this briefcase lobbyist cunt

[Blue Jam]

It's crazy how the Sun, Mirror, and other papers have given out huge amounts of money to phone hacking victims for years, yet this isn't considered a significant scandal. People need to know what Sadie Frost is doing so badly, they don't care how the information is acquired.

In the case of Sadie Frost I believe news of a pregnancy was reported before she'd even announced it to close friends and family. Just out-and-out scummy behaviour.

You'd hope that eventually the entire British newspaper system would die as a result of contempt and indifference, but (even though the regional press is almost dead) the national newspapers are determined to get ever more loud and hateful and try and attract readers as long as it can.

I'd love to see the Mail taken down but I feel like Leveson changed nothing, the NotW phone hacking scandal changed nothing, all that's going to happen is we'll get a high-profile scandal make it to court every ten years and in between the publishers will just quietly keep paying people off in out-of-court settlements. Like Gavin Burrows implies, invasion of privacy is just what these people do and we all just need to stop whining and accept it.

[Replies From View]

Feels quite comfortingly retro, this.

[Ferris]

It's always the ones you least suspect.

Thoughts and prayers for a speedy recovery.

[BlodwynPig]

So retro that i'm reading this story in my copy of Today, while drinking a black coffee, eating a croissant and wearing a white suit and panama hat.

[Icehaven]

Plus that "defence", if it can be called that, that there was evidence they were doing it for years isn't necessarily true when it comes to famous people as they've often got good reason to suspect it's more likely that someone in their wider circle or someone they've encountered another way (e.g. in Frost's case maybe a medical professional) is leaking information than that their phone is being hacked. I'm sure I remember Sienna Miller saying something to that effect, that the worst aspect was that it led her to suspect her closest friends and family were betraying her because things she knew she'd only discussed with them were ending up in the papers.
God they really went for Jude Law and his various ladies didn't they?

[touchingcloth]

How does one hack a phone? Asking for a friend('s phone).

[niat]

the Guardian even did a little piece asking "b-b-but whatabout social media?" and trying to argue that phone hacking is old hat and they should just let it go.

How did I know this was going to be written by Simon Jenkins? Silly old cunt.

[Blue Jam]

How does one hack a phone? Asking for a friend('s phone).

The default PIN on voicemail accounts is often 1111 and a lot of people don't bother to change it. Armed with this information I still couldn't tell you how to hack into someone else's account but I understand that's part of it.

[idunnosomename]

How did I know this was going to be written by Simon Jenkins? Silly old cunt.

that you can poor old Simon Jenkins a "silly old cunt" on the internet with impunity is exactly why the police should be able to trace your IP and throw you in jail!!!

[touchingcloth]

The default PIN on voicemail accounts is often 1111 and a lot of people don't bother to change it. Armed with this information I still couldn't tell you how to hack into someone else's account but I understand that's part of it.

Hacking voicemails is boring. I want to hack Doreen's PHONE.

[MojoJojo]

The default PIN on voicemail accounts is often 1111 and a lot of people don't bother to change it. Armed with this information I still couldn't tell you how to hack into someone else's account but I understand that's part of it.

On most networks, you phone the persons mobile number and press * when you go to voicemail. You can then enter your pin and then listen to messages.
There are some more tricks to go straight to voicemail without any risk they'll pick up. Most networks have a number you can dial, then you enter the phone number, then you enter your pin.

[Replies From View]

Why has it been left so easy to hack voice mails after all the Lilly downler case

[Uncle TechTip]

I wonder if anyone considered suing the phone companies for their dreadful security measures. This voicemail is provided as-is

[MojoJojo]

Why has it been left so easy to hack voice mails after all the Lilly downler case

They've tightened it up now. No default pins and depending on network, you might have to explicitly enable remote access.
(it's weird feature - who actually needs it?)

[touchingcloth]

I wonder if anyone considered suing the phone companies for their dreadful security measures. This voicemail is provided as-is

Or banks, for letting fraudsters on their books, or allowing BACS payments to go through for cases where the payee name they force you to provide when making the payment doesn't match that of the account holder being paid.

[Bennett Brauer]

So retro that i'm reading this story in my copy of Today

Where the photo of Liz Hurley look like this



#RetroLaughs

[Blue Jam]

Forgive my choice of thread title- it looks like this goes beyond simple "phone hacking" and covers things which are much, much worse:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65092316

Technically, hacking does not actually cover it. The claims are much wider.

The case has not yet reached trial. This week is all about legal argument.

If it does eventually go to a full trial, it will be a hugely significant moment.

The seven claimants (not just Prince Harry, but also Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sadie Frost Law, Sir Simon Hughes and Elizabeth Hurley) allege serious criminal activity by Associated Newspapers.

If true, this is even worse than phone hacking.

The allegations include the use of bugging devices put inside people's cars and homes, surreptitious listening in to private phone calls as they were happening, impersonating people to get private information and other "gross breaches of privacy" according to the claimants' lawyers.

I read elsewhere that medical records had been obtained, which would explain Sadie Frost's pregnancy making it into the news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65139280.amp

The allegations are eye-watering. Nineteen private investigators are alleged to have placed phone taps on landlines, taped microphones to windows, bugged cars, intercepted voicemail, blagged information ranging from bank statements to flight details, and put their targets under surveillance. They are said to have worked for around 80 journalists on the two Associated Newspapers titles.

Note that this article ends with the same piss-weak "Isn't this old hat? Whatabout social media?" argument that made the basis of Simon Jenkins' Guardian article. Are ANL feeding people that line?

[Blue Jam]

... and this could be about to snowball:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65092316

By turning up, Prince Harry has sent a clear message to Associated Newspapers. He wants to be the visible face of this action.

He is also part of forthcoming cases against other media organisations.

In May, a trial will begin against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) which owns the Daily Mirror, over accusations of phone hacking between 1996 and 2011. MGN disputes the claims made by Prince Harry, former Girls Aloud singer Cheryl and the estate of George Michael amongst others.

The duke is also trying to bring a case against News Group Newspapers, which owns the Sun and the now defunct News of the World.

I'm now wondering if the British press's efforts to train the public to hate Harry and Meghan were something of a pre-emptive strike.

[BlodwynPig]

Bye bye news, good riddance!!

[Sonny_Jim]

As with the News of the World hacking Milly Dowler's voicemail, hacking the phone of a grieving mother is not a good look.

IIRC, the investigation hadn't turned up a body yet but someone had accessed Millies voicemail remotely, giving false hope to the family that she was still alive.

[mjwilson]

Why has it been left so easy to hack voice mails after all the Lilly downler case

I spent a while working on the voicemail software for one of the big telcos and they were pretty pleased that they hadn't been hacked.

(Not going to name them just in case it has turned out since that they did in fact get hacked to shit.)

[Blue Jam]

Today it has emerged that Prince Baldy made phone hacking allegations against the S*n and they settled out of court with "a very large sum":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65387663

ANL looking a bit more fucked now, hope they case against them goes to court.

[Icehaven]

Why would someone for whom any amount of money is virtually meaningless and with access to the best legal representation available settle out of court? Surely for someone like Wills the point is to drag the tabloids through the mill and get them prosecuted rather than accept some cash you really don't need. I wonder why he could possibly not have wanted the details of his phonecalls to be discussed in court?   

[idunnosomename]

Nah money indeed has meaning to all these cunts and they just want more like every rich cunt

[katzenjammer]

Yeah, they can never have enough. Also I expect 'favourable treatment in future' was promised