Harry's latest legal battle gains steam

Watch Harry's latest legal battle gains steam - Rizzle on Dailymotion

Transcript

00:00Harry's latest legal battle gained steam. Prince Harry's legal team made damaging accusations

00:06against a British publisher in the run-up to their trial date. Prince Harry is part of a

00:10group of British celebrities suing Daily Mail and its publisher for allegedly engaging in

00:15unlawful activities to obtain private information. Since the October case management conference,

00:21the claimants have continued to drip-feed disclosure, including manifestly incomplete

00:25but nevertheless highly significant documentation from early 2016, Anthony White, who represents

00:32Associated Newspapers Limited, told the court, per GB News, Prince Harry and the A-lister's attorney,

00:38David Sherborne, informed the court that 11 boxes of evidence had been reviewed,

00:43but he wants an additional 36 boxes to be examined. The defendant refuses to search any of these boxes,

00:49essentially on the basis that the process of reviewing the boxes was time-consuming,

00:54Sherborne said. The drip-feed of disclosure by the defendant from Crown Archive demonstrates a

00:59fundamental failure to carry out proper searches, David Sherborne continued. The defendant has

01:05repeatedly said to the court that it has carried out thorough and generous disclosure, but this is

01:10plainly not the case. Anthony White said it was highly likely that the celebrities' research team

01:15had all relevant documents. Justice Nicklin shared his ruling with both parties.

01:20My conclusion is that the documents held by members of the research team, including documents that

01:26came into their possession prior to the engagement agreement, are within the control of the claimants

01:31for the purposes of standard disclosure. Those documents must be properly searched, and such documents

01:36that fall within the terms of standard disclosure must be disclosed. Nicklin said.

01:40Well, we're here for a few purposes of the decision, which is correct, if they had to follow the