The Court has denied ANL's request to appeal. However, that doesn't mean ANL cannot, anyway, go to the Appeals Court. The denial of permission to appeal was a given. It should be remembered that an appeal addresses whether the lower court's decision was founded on an error of law. That is not an easy thing to succeed in. My guess is that ANL will argue that having given it permission to expand its scope of enquiry, the Court must have had reason to believe that there was merit in that scope of enquiry, and then refused the defendant the right to demonstrate that merit via a trial, and that the SJ was therefore arbitrary.
Appeals Courts are usually very careful about undermining a lower court's integrity without very good reason. I would be surprised if ANL can prevail on this argument with the Appeals Court.
That said, I am glad ANL is trying it on, as it means Meghan will have to spend more money and the case will continue to be before the public, and to cast further suspicion on her "victory".
ANL can well afford a couple of million quid on their own and Meghan's legal fees, so it is probably worth it to them to continue to fill the public's mind about doubt re Meghan's honesty.
I haven't seen yet whether there was a decision in the damages issue.
I think ANL had to appeal or at least try to, and the public expected them to.
I believe that the CR issue has been dropped, and MM's team have said this is to save time and limit the total amount of damages. This is supposed to make them appear charitable? I think that was the aim, but it failed to those who can read between the lines. In other words, they are doing ANL a favour...
If the CoA refuses permission to appeal, then I think there will be huge public backlash. The RF will forever be tarnished with rumours of interfering and for covering up 'issues', and given their low popularity right now, that would be unwise. ANL could still lose, but at least the public would see that justice was seen to be done.
Thank you Harry Markle for slogging through that awful convoluted Summary Judgement. As an American, my understanding may be a bit skewed, but at the time of the publishing of both the People article and the MoS articles, wasn’t her Markleness a full-on working royal, ergo, a public servant, being paid with the public’s money to publicly represent the people of the U.K? All this hogwash about ‘public curiosity’ vs. ‘public interest’ should fly out the window! It seems to me that you may need flood your judicial system with letters or a petition to remove Warby from the bench or request the SJ be thrown out in the public’s best interest. I agree that ANL alone won’t be able to mount an appeal without public support - beyond support in comment sections of articles and appeals. IMHO, anyway. It seems like in this case, the defendant was guilty and had to prove its innocence. I thought the burden of proof always fell to the prosecution or claimant? Regarding the palace, I do believe this is one time where the ‘men in grey’ of the various offices may have been in conflict behind the scenes. BP and KP were likely chomping to provide evidence in the case, but CH is who didn’t want anything out and where Warby sought guidance. Otherwise, I don’t believe the case would have ever received the letter stating there were 4 palace workers who could provide testimony. He truly is the weakest link. And it’s ironic too. He’s done everything he can to cut out Andrew and his daughters from being active Royal members all for a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy, but can’t pull the trigger on his own traitorous son for the same reason - especially when his son wants out. It’s truly a shame that Prince Phillip is so sick. He’s always been HMTQ’s backbone and we could really use him to straighten Charles up. I hope that Charles’s eyes were red because PP read him the riot act! When PP passes, I hope that HMTQ will command the dreadful duo, if they come back for the funeral, 1)arrive & depart the UK without public notice or fanfare 2) attend a private viewing 3) be barred from attending any public viewings or ceremonies and 4) be barred from speaking publicly while in the UK.
I have read the original judgement and now "The Warbling Summary Judgement" which clarified a number of issues I could not quite get my head around. Thank you Harry Markle for your very hard work. I also found it hard to understand some of his judgement and his reasoning and going round in circles certainly did not help.
The defence was simply prevented from defending itself which in my book is a miscarriage of justice. I hope ANL do appeal and that a fair and proper trial goes ahead. People need to be questioned under oath and not allowed to sidestep questions they do not like.
As we have all seen and commented on, the accounts of certain participants have changed more than once or twice when they have been shown as either untrue or partially true. BP needs to stop interfering if they want to rein in MM as thus far she is enboldened by every perceived "win".
Today when I turned on the media - some of us do work even from home, living with poor health, anxiety and prominent fear for the future (of ourselves, our loved ones, our countries, mankind...) so we just tune in at lunch hour or at the end of the day... but as I was saying when I tuned in I had a major anxiety attack. I was hoping - silly I know but be kind and think that a 50 something year old can still be naïve regarding their antics - that we would have to deal with all this (garbage) after Her Majesty Commonwealth Address.
I can only imagine - and hope because I do want to believe people aren't all like the dreadful duo - how Warby felt in the past weeks. I have no doubt The Royal Family put their fingers in this pie, again hoping to make Harry happy and hoping for less "waves"...
You are a brave human Harry Markle! I could never dedicate to these two past the first months of being manipulated by their PR and, even (I dare say) The Royal Family.
It was much easier to let it go - like The Royal Family - did all these years in Henry's case. And after in Rachel and Harry's case. I am forever indebted for you to remain calm, poised, so fair, and informative and keep us on the (agonizing and degusting) spin. I can say I will never give up as long as you don't. Cheers!
Warby could still 'punish' MM for her misleading statements and make her pay all the legal costs, and that is the only way he has a remote chance of redeeming himself in the history books. She may get the 'win' for now, but a slap on the wrist for fibbing.
Having read his judgment, I doubt it, but his reputation is in the gutter as it is.
All I can say is that Harry Markle the Blog Writer has more patience than Job to slog through all of the SJ, and I am grateful. I must think he/she is an attorney and a great one at that!
Harry-Markle, WELL DONE. "The Warbling Summary Judgment" is a tour de force. All your hard work should make you proud of yourself, as indeed all of us are. I would hope, tho, that the ANL defense team reads it -- you may well (and probably have) examined some cogent point they missed.
To answer your questions: 1) No, it was most certainly NOT appropriate, given the wealth of evidence that was not allowed to get in, and rejected under the flimsiest of reasons. 2) Sadly, no. Someone, somewhere, somehow (the RF?) is keeping a lid on the press. I noticed that when the case was fairly new, in the early hearings stages, articles appeared here and there outlining the two sides' positions fairly comprehensively. By the time the SJ was issued, *crickets.*
"In citing Dupate v Latvia Application 18068/11 Judgment of 19 November 2020 [51], he claims that this case was for public curiosity, rather than to be in the public interest, as in the media coverage wasn’t serious enough to warrant an issue of discussion or debate."
This should have been determined when the case was first brought. And, it should have been dismissed as soon as it was first brought, since it was just a matter of "curiosity." In the USA, cases that are judged as being "not serious" are tossed immediately. Certainly you do the same thing (or the courts would be hopelessly jammed). Why did he wait so long?
Warby seems to be treating this case the same way the Royals treat Harry. Look at "A" with a wide lens; look at "B" with a narrow lens, look at "C" as a personal matter, and look at "D" as a public matter. If you recast every word in a case, it is possible to dismiss the entire thing.
It seems that Warby has traded his good name for political expediency in his service to the Queen. Is that how "justice" works in Great Britain? Heart-breaking if true. When I go to court, I want to believe I have a fighting chance of winning, if the facts are on my side. But, it seems that Warby manipulated the language to affect a particular outcome, to please the Queen.
This is shocking in its ham-handed dispatch of justice. He has twisted himself into a pretzel and it appears that he is arguing with himself. He doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks, as long as the Queen is pleased with his performance.
The Dupate case had been going on for 14 years, back and forth until the desired result was achieved. However, the public interest was for Dupate's then partner (but photos were taken of her) which is why the case succeeded, and because the media outlet used a small amount of text which didn't satisfy the Court that the images were used for reporting a story in the public interest.
This case is different as there was public interest in all the parties concerned, and some of the Mail articles did cover the story as a current event. However, some stories fell short of this, and that is why this case should go to trial.
What an excellent and insightful dissection of the ruling on the summary judgment. The SJ itself was wholly biased and an exercise in self-justification for a judgment that even the judge did not appear to truly believe. While we do not know the underlying reasons for his decision, we do know that the result is the denial of justice.
Wow, that was a small novel indeed! What a lot of thinking and hard graft went into that! It appears to me that the way Warby handled it was really quite a travesty of justice and pathetically weak. It still feels like pressure was applied behind the scenes and he wanted rid of it as quickly as possible. It does not feel like justice was done, and in my view it is totally wrong that the defence were denied the opportunity to properly produce witnesses and defend themselves, and that they were denied their request for further information from the claimant. A whitewash is what comes to mind. ANL really do need to appeal and I hope they do!
Much appreciation to Harry Markle for doing the slog work to keep us informed. Certainly, something about the decision seems questionable, given the earlier decision to allow the defence to expand its scope of enquiry, and then pulling the rug out from under it before it had an opportunity to present that expanded defence. It's tantamount ordering an important test in order to diagnose a catastrophic disease, and then deciding to recommend treatment without the test or the final diagnosis.
It is the use of the term "fanciful" by Justice Warby to describe any conclusion other than that Meghan's privacy was invaded that is disturbing, as, if that were really the case, why bother to allow the defence to expand its scope of enquiry?
I suppose we will never know where the dog is really buried here, so to speak. One can only guess, and my guesses, for what they're worth, are: 1) when Meghan dragged "two senior royals" into the mess, pressure was brought to bear to see that that the case never made it to trial to avoid exposing Charles and Camilla to scandal, 2) whilst I have no doubt the family don't care about Meghan, they do still care about Harry (although why, given his disloyalty and disrespect, I cannot imagine why), and any dirt that sticks to Meghan, sticks to Harry - especially where colluding in "Finding Freedom" is concerned, as both colluded in the book; and, lastly, 3) Mr Justice Warby wished to set a precedent that would impose further restraints on the notorious British tabloids.
Precedents, however, are dangerous instruments. However badly behaved the tabloids are, celebrities are hardly better behaved, and this judgement has allowed anyone with money, influence, and power to lie to the public more confidently. I do not doubt that the tabloids will continue to present the Sussexes in a bad light - they have probably already held numerous conferences to reshape their approach.
Once the Palace Four stepped forward, it became clear that the ensuing trial would be an epic public relations show. Perhaps Mr Justice Warby did not have the patience or stomach for same.
And here is my prediction, one which, again, I wish was not on track to fulfillment as my earlier one was: there will be no appeal by ANL. Behind the scenes, ANL know perfectly well, I believe, that the pressures that brought the case to a stop are not merely legal, and those are pressures ANL cannot win against.
It is quite sad. It is infuriating to see shallow, disloyal, disrespectful people seemingly having so much good luck, but that's one of the oldest stories in human history.
Wishing us all more peaceful hearts in processing this unhappy truth.
After reading the letter from Addleshaw Goddard from source, I am inclined to believe that there has been some 'interference' from the RF, and I agree too that the mention of the 'senior members of the RF' by MM was a warning shot fired by her. The whole thing is despicable, and it creates an unsafe precedent, but it will not stop the tabloids.
What this does is urge more people to demand and seek the truth, and another tabloid will take a hit to reverse the precedent. We are reminded of Lord Hewart CJ, THE KING (REX) v. SUSSEX JUSTICES. 1923. Nov. 9. Ex parte McCARTHY who stated that:
"Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice."
"Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly must be seen to be done." This refers to a landmark case where a conviction was quashed because while justice was done, it wasn't seen to be done as the justices had retired with the deputy clerk who was a partner of the company suing McCarthy for damages. While Langham (the deputy clerk) abstained from any discussions, and the justices took measures to ensure there was no bias, the fact is that justice wasn't seen to be done.
Thus, there must be no conflict of interest, or even a hint of interference with the course of justice. Can that truly be said when you read Addleshaw Goddard's letter? The fact that the Palace Four didn't proffer statements when requested? The question is, did this amount to interference, and if there is a suscpicion of interference, then surely this case needs to be appealed (as above). However, is ANL brave enough to use the precedent of a landmark case to challenge this sham of a case?
No one wishes to believe that the RF would 'interfere' with a legal case, but that suspicion exists. While that exists, it damages the RF, and the only way to counteract this is to allow this case to go to trial, and to assist readily and not reluctantly as they have done so far. It is a poor example that they set to the nation when they fail to adhere to the laws of the land, and then try to circumvent them. They may believe this is damage limitation, but in fact this course of action damages them silently, and may even destroy them.
The days of justices with integrity seem to have disappeared with career motivated judges, and while the law evolves in some areas, the basic principles stand. What would Lord Hewart LC say about this case if he was here? I think he would have some harsh words with Mr Justice Warby...
It causes me pause, first of all, that the HM duo now reside here in the US, because they've brought their show to us now and we already see them trying to exert their "influence" in areas. Their ability to shut down an entire military cemetery, I find quite disturbing. But because of your comment in #1, regarding the CC duo, I wonder if this same CC duo had any influence over the large Netflix and Spotify contracts. As for your "why" in #2, Harry will always remain the prodigal son until he returns home, so they don't want to burn any bridges with him. Like many, CC likely expect the relationship will not last and he will eventually want/need to return home. They've circled their wagons around him, and while he will continue to disappoint and disrespect, the circle will remain until he is back in the fold permanently. They will continue to protect him, as much as possible, to make it easier for him to return, regardless of how people feel about that, because he is still a part of the RF. One need only look to see how they've circled around Andrew, at how little coverage there has been regarding his behavior, to know Harry will remain protected, as he always has been. Their first priority is, and always has been, to protect their own.
I loved your article and trying to get myself educated with the Uk Justice system but it is not so easy to understand. It seems to be the Judges wouldn't do much when there is an issue with the RF.
Not just for you , I live in the UK and this is way over my head in places . Well done Harry Markle for wading through this , you deserve a medal for tenacity and perseverance !
Wasn't Warby given a Knighthood very recently, for services rendered perhaps?
The Court has denied ANL's request to appeal. However, that doesn't mean ANL cannot, anyway, go to the Appeals Court. The denial of permission to appeal was a given. It should be remembered that an appeal addresses whether the lower court's decision was founded on an error of law. That is not an easy thing to succeed in. My guess is that ANL will argue that having given it permission to expand its scope of enquiry, the Court must have had reason to believe that there was merit in that scope of enquiry, and then refused the defendant the right to demonstrate that merit via a trial, and that the SJ was therefore arbitrary.
Appeals Courts are usually very careful about undermining a lower court's integrity without very good reason. I would be surprised if ANL can prevail on this argument with the Appeals Court.
That said, I am glad ANL is trying it on, as it means Meghan will have to spend more money and the case will continue to be before the public, and to cast further suspicion on her "victory".
ANL can well afford a couple of million quid on their own and Meghan's legal fees, so it is probably worth it to them to continue to fill the public's mind about doubt re Meghan's honesty.
I haven't seen yet whether there was a decision in the damages issue.
I think ANL had to appeal or at least try to, and the public expected them to.
I believe that the CR issue has been dropped, and MM's team have said this is to save time and limit the total amount of damages. This is supposed to make them appear charitable? I think that was the aim, but it failed to those who can read between the lines. In other words, they are doing ANL a favour...
Warby thrown it out it appears
ANL are appealing...fingers crossed
If the CoA refuses permission to appeal, then I think there will be huge public backlash. The RF will forever be tarnished with rumours of interfering and for covering up 'issues', and given their low popularity right now, that would be unwise. ANL could still lose, but at least the public would see that justice was seen to be done.
Thank you Harry Markle for slogging through that awful convoluted Summary Judgement. As an American, my understanding may be a bit skewed, but at the time of the publishing of both the People article and the MoS articles, wasn’t her Markleness a full-on working royal, ergo, a public servant, being paid with the public’s money to publicly represent the people of the U.K? All this hogwash about ‘public curiosity’ vs. ‘public interest’ should fly out the window! It seems to me that you may need flood your judicial system with letters or a petition to remove Warby from the bench or request the SJ be thrown out in the public’s best interest. I agree that ANL alone won’t be able to mount an appeal without public support - beyond support in comment sections of articles and appeals. IMHO, anyway. It seems like in this case, the defendant was guilty and had to prove its innocence. I thought the burden of proof always fell to the prosecution or claimant? Regarding the palace, I do believe this is one time where the ‘men in grey’ of the various offices may have been in conflict behind the scenes. BP and KP were likely chomping to provide evidence in the case, but CH is who didn’t want anything out and where Warby sought guidance. Otherwise, I don’t believe the case would have ever received the letter stating there were 4 palace workers who could provide testimony. He truly is the weakest link. And it’s ironic too. He’s done everything he can to cut out Andrew and his daughters from being active Royal members all for a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy, but can’t pull the trigger on his own traitorous son for the same reason - especially when his son wants out. It’s truly a shame that Prince Phillip is so sick. He’s always been HMTQ’s backbone and we could really use him to straighten Charles up. I hope that Charles’s eyes were red because PP read him the riot act! When PP passes, I hope that HMTQ will command the dreadful duo, if they come back for the funeral, 1)arrive & depart the UK without public notice or fanfare 2) attend a private viewing 3) be barred from attending any public viewings or ceremonies and 4) be barred from speaking publicly while in the UK.
I have read the original judgement and now "The Warbling Summary Judgement" which clarified a number of issues I could not quite get my head around. Thank you Harry Markle for your very hard work. I also found it hard to understand some of his judgement and his reasoning and going round in circles certainly did not help.
The defence was simply prevented from defending itself which in my book is a miscarriage of justice. I hope ANL do appeal and that a fair and proper trial goes ahead. People need to be questioned under oath and not allowed to sidestep questions they do not like.
As we have all seen and commented on, the accounts of certain participants have changed more than once or twice when they have been shown as either untrue or partially true. BP needs to stop interfering if they want to rein in MM as thus far she is enboldened by every perceived "win".
Today when I turned on the media - some of us do work even from home, living with poor health, anxiety and prominent fear for the future (of ourselves, our loved ones, our countries, mankind...) so we just tune in at lunch hour or at the end of the day... but as I was saying when I tuned in I had a major anxiety attack. I was hoping - silly I know but be kind and think that a 50 something year old can still be naïve regarding their antics - that we would have to deal with all this (garbage) after Her Majesty Commonwealth Address.
I can only imagine - and hope because I do want to believe people aren't all like the dreadful duo - how Warby felt in the past weeks. I have no doubt The Royal Family put their fingers in this pie, again hoping to make Harry happy and hoping for less "waves"...
You are a brave human Harry Markle! I could never dedicate to these two past the first months of being manipulated by their PR and, even (I dare say) The Royal Family.
It was much easier to let it go - like The Royal Family - did all these years in Henry's case. And after in Rachel and Harry's case. I am forever indebted for you to remain calm, poised, so fair, and informative and keep us on the (agonizing and degusting) spin. I can say I will never give up as long as you don't. Cheers!
Warby could still 'punish' MM for her misleading statements and make her pay all the legal costs, and that is the only way he has a remote chance of redeeming himself in the history books. She may get the 'win' for now, but a slap on the wrist for fibbing.
Having read his judgment, I doubt it, but his reputation is in the gutter as it is.
All I can say is that Harry Markle the Blog Writer has more patience than Job to slog through all of the SJ, and I am grateful. I must think he/she is an attorney and a great one at that!
There should definitely be an appeal because justice wasn't SEEN to be done.
Harry-Markle, WELL DONE. "The Warbling Summary Judgment" is a tour de force. All your hard work should make you proud of yourself, as indeed all of us are. I would hope, tho, that the ANL defense team reads it -- you may well (and probably have) examined some cogent point they missed.
To answer your questions: 1) No, it was most certainly NOT appropriate, given the wealth of evidence that was not allowed to get in, and rejected under the flimsiest of reasons. 2) Sadly, no. Someone, somewhere, somehow (the RF?) is keeping a lid on the press. I noticed that when the case was fairly new, in the early hearings stages, articles appeared here and there outlining the two sides' positions fairly comprehensively. By the time the SJ was issued, *crickets.*
"In citing Dupate v Latvia Application 18068/11 Judgment of 19 November 2020 [51], he claims that this case was for public curiosity, rather than to be in the public interest, as in the media coverage wasn’t serious enough to warrant an issue of discussion or debate."
This should have been determined when the case was first brought. And, it should have been dismissed as soon as it was first brought, since it was just a matter of "curiosity." In the USA, cases that are judged as being "not serious" are tossed immediately. Certainly you do the same thing (or the courts would be hopelessly jammed). Why did he wait so long?
Warby seems to be treating this case the same way the Royals treat Harry. Look at "A" with a wide lens; look at "B" with a narrow lens, look at "C" as a personal matter, and look at "D" as a public matter. If you recast every word in a case, it is possible to dismiss the entire thing.
It seems that Warby has traded his good name for political expediency in his service to the Queen. Is that how "justice" works in Great Britain? Heart-breaking if true. When I go to court, I want to believe I have a fighting chance of winning, if the facts are on my side. But, it seems that Warby manipulated the language to affect a particular outcome, to please the Queen.
This is shocking in its ham-handed dispatch of justice. He has twisted himself into a pretzel and it appears that he is arguing with himself. He doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks, as long as the Queen is pleased with his performance.
The Dupate case had been going on for 14 years, back and forth until the desired result was achieved. However, the public interest was for Dupate's then partner (but photos were taken of her) which is why the case succeeded, and because the media outlet used a small amount of text which didn't satisfy the Court that the images were used for reporting a story in the public interest.
This case is different as there was public interest in all the parties concerned, and some of the Mail articles did cover the story as a current event. However, some stories fell short of this, and that is why this case should go to trial.
What an excellent and insightful dissection of the ruling on the summary judgment. The SJ itself was wholly biased and an exercise in self-justification for a judgment that even the judge did not appear to truly believe. While we do not know the underlying reasons for his decision, we do know that the result is the denial of justice.
Wow, that was a small novel indeed! What a lot of thinking and hard graft went into that! It appears to me that the way Warby handled it was really quite a travesty of justice and pathetically weak. It still feels like pressure was applied behind the scenes and he wanted rid of it as quickly as possible. It does not feel like justice was done, and in my view it is totally wrong that the defence were denied the opportunity to properly produce witnesses and defend themselves, and that they were denied their request for further information from the claimant. A whitewash is what comes to mind. ANL really do need to appeal and I hope they do!
Much appreciation to Harry Markle for doing the slog work to keep us informed. Certainly, something about the decision seems questionable, given the earlier decision to allow the defence to expand its scope of enquiry, and then pulling the rug out from under it before it had an opportunity to present that expanded defence. It's tantamount ordering an important test in order to diagnose a catastrophic disease, and then deciding to recommend treatment without the test or the final diagnosis.
It is the use of the term "fanciful" by Justice Warby to describe any conclusion other than that Meghan's privacy was invaded that is disturbing, as, if that were really the case, why bother to allow the defence to expand its scope of enquiry?
I suppose we will never know where the dog is really buried here, so to speak. One can only guess, and my guesses, for what they're worth, are: 1) when Meghan dragged "two senior royals" into the mess, pressure was brought to bear to see that that the case never made it to trial to avoid exposing Charles and Camilla to scandal, 2) whilst I have no doubt the family don't care about Meghan, they do still care about Harry (although why, given his disloyalty and disrespect, I cannot imagine why), and any dirt that sticks to Meghan, sticks to Harry - especially where colluding in "Finding Freedom" is concerned, as both colluded in the book; and, lastly, 3) Mr Justice Warby wished to set a precedent that would impose further restraints on the notorious British tabloids.
Precedents, however, are dangerous instruments. However badly behaved the tabloids are, celebrities are hardly better behaved, and this judgement has allowed anyone with money, influence, and power to lie to the public more confidently. I do not doubt that the tabloids will continue to present the Sussexes in a bad light - they have probably already held numerous conferences to reshape their approach.
Once the Palace Four stepped forward, it became clear that the ensuing trial would be an epic public relations show. Perhaps Mr Justice Warby did not have the patience or stomach for same.
And here is my prediction, one which, again, I wish was not on track to fulfillment as my earlier one was: there will be no appeal by ANL. Behind the scenes, ANL know perfectly well, I believe, that the pressures that brought the case to a stop are not merely legal, and those are pressures ANL cannot win against.
It is quite sad. It is infuriating to see shallow, disloyal, disrespectful people seemingly having so much good luck, but that's one of the oldest stories in human history.
Wishing us all more peaceful hearts in processing this unhappy truth.
After reading the letter from Addleshaw Goddard from source, I am inclined to believe that there has been some 'interference' from the RF, and I agree too that the mention of the 'senior members of the RF' by MM was a warning shot fired by her. The whole thing is despicable, and it creates an unsafe precedent, but it will not stop the tabloids.
What this does is urge more people to demand and seek the truth, and another tabloid will take a hit to reverse the precedent. We are reminded of Lord Hewart CJ, THE KING (REX) v. SUSSEX JUSTICES. 1923. Nov. 9. Ex parte McCARTHY who stated that:
"Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice."
"Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly must be seen to be done." This refers to a landmark case where a conviction was quashed because while justice was done, it wasn't seen to be done as the justices had retired with the deputy clerk who was a partner of the company suing McCarthy for damages. While Langham (the deputy clerk) abstained from any discussions, and the justices took measures to ensure there was no bias, the fact is that justice wasn't seen to be done.
Thus, there must be no conflict of interest, or even a hint of interference with the course of justice. Can that truly be said when you read Addleshaw Goddard's letter? The fact that the Palace Four didn't proffer statements when requested? The question is, did this amount to interference, and if there is a suscpicion of interference, then surely this case needs to be appealed (as above). However, is ANL brave enough to use the precedent of a landmark case to challenge this sham of a case?
No one wishes to believe that the RF would 'interfere' with a legal case, but that suspicion exists. While that exists, it damages the RF, and the only way to counteract this is to allow this case to go to trial, and to assist readily and not reluctantly as they have done so far. It is a poor example that they set to the nation when they fail to adhere to the laws of the land, and then try to circumvent them. They may believe this is damage limitation, but in fact this course of action damages them silently, and may even destroy them.
The days of justices with integrity seem to have disappeared with career motivated judges, and while the law evolves in some areas, the basic principles stand. What would Lord Hewart LC say about this case if he was here? I think he would have some harsh words with Mr Justice Warby...
It causes me pause, first of all, that the HM duo now reside here in the US, because they've brought their show to us now and we already see them trying to exert their "influence" in areas. Their ability to shut down an entire military cemetery, I find quite disturbing. But because of your comment in #1, regarding the CC duo, I wonder if this same CC duo had any influence over the large Netflix and Spotify contracts. As for your "why" in #2, Harry will always remain the prodigal son until he returns home, so they don't want to burn any bridges with him. Like many, CC likely expect the relationship will not last and he will eventually want/need to return home. They've circled their wagons around him, and while he will continue to disappoint and disrespect, the circle will remain until he is back in the fold permanently. They will continue to protect him, as much as possible, to make it easier for him to return, regardless of how people feel about that, because he is still a part of the RF. One need only look to see how they've circled around Andrew, at how little coverage there has been regarding his behavior, to know Harry will remain protected, as he always has been. Their first priority is, and always has been, to protect their own.
I loved your article and trying to get myself educated with the Uk Justice system but it is not so easy to understand. It seems to be the Judges wouldn't do much when there is an issue with the RF.
Not just for you , I live in the UK and this is way over my head in places . Well done Harry Markle for wading through this , you deserve a medal for tenacity and perseverance !
That is what I'm picking up too. Everything is tickety-boo until the Queen wants something, then "justice" is just a concept, but not reality.