“The family will decide soon whether to bring a second private prosecution for murder against Jamie Acourt and Norris. They are also considering suing all five for damages”
“The information referring to Sadie being prescribed antidepressants and sleeping pills and the ‘row the night before’ is again very private and very specific”
“Obviously then, the night before we weren’t staying in the same place, and we would’ve exchanged voice messages”
“Some of the information in the article, including the information about Sadie taking anti-depressants and sleeping pills, was either already old news or almost certainly came from a freelance contact of mine, Sharon Feinstein”
“I suggest to you that you obtained this through listening in to voicemail messages, Ms Lampert?”
“You’re completely wrong”
“Had some note re: Ultrascan. Yes, she is having that kind of treatment. She went for an ultra-sound She is pregnant Dr Geoffrey Lloyd – had a letter about “She’s been having that kind of treatment”
“It has to be made up. The doctor wouldn’t write a letter. The whole thing is ridiculous. It’s absolutely not true as far as I know. I haven’t seen a letter”
“I’m not pregnant. People just start rumours. My friends are gossiping about me and it’s just not true.”
“It’s nobody’s business whether I am or not/haven’t been pregnant in the last few months. It’s Private anyway! You will probably be getting a call from my lawyers.”
“On ultra scan: - ‘It’s not one’s business. It’s a private issue.’”
“Found out about Ectopic pregnancy beginning of last week. She’s very angry with herself. They were using condoms. St. John + Eliz (took a tablet to flush it out) [And] was treated there and was out in an hour. Jackson has flown over to be with her”
“I had no idea – I don’t know anything about this!”
“That bit was untrue. The rest of the story is true”
“You see, if we go to [the Ledger entries] we see a number of payments to ELI around the time of this article. I suggest to you that you knew perfectly well that ELI were being used by your desk to obtain information from the use of voicemail interception?”
“Hi Chris, Have you made any progress with the Simon Hughes boyfriend?”
“sorry Greg - just seen your note, we have been trying for a picture, but without success. I shall check on progress and get back to you.”
“Hi Chris, It’s just that my source is putting pressure on me. Also, are you interested in Sadie Frost? I might have a story about her”
“Quite understand, Greg, and I’m really sorry about the lack of progress. We are there again today but the place is deserted - there is a LibDem sticker in the window though - and we are going to have to pull off at lunchtime. It looks for all the world as if our happy couple are on holiday. Of course we are interested in Sadie.”
“Hi Chris, How’s it going with Jade and Simon Hughes?”
“okay Greg - shall try, many thanks”
“by the way, Jade has said through friends that she doesn’t want to talk ...”
“Morning Chris, I clearly there is no interest in the Sadie Frost nanny being sacked. I would like to take the story back pls. You did say you would stick me through for£500 for Simon Hughes and Sadie”
“He hadn’t told me. If he had told me, I wouldn’t have touched [it]…”
“its confirmed with seat numbers. maybe you and duncan can plant someone next to her? Heathrow (London) Terminal 1 - Johannesburg Terminal A, Sun9 Dec 2007 , 21:05 Flight: SA0237 Status: Confirmed From: Heathrow (London) Terminal 1 To: Johannesburg Terminal A Depart: Sun9 Dec 2007 , 21:05 Arrive: Mon10 Dec 2007 , 10.10 Duration: 11hrs 5mins Class: Operated by: South African A L Seats: 67K Johannesburg Terminal B - Durban, Mon10 Dec 2007 , 12:55 Flight: SA0555 Status: Confirmed From: Johannesburg Terminal B To: Durban Depart: Mon10 Dec 2007 , 12.55 Arrive: Mon10 Dec 2007 , 14.05 Duration: 1hr mins Class: Operated by: South African A L Seats: 19A”
“An official at the Los Angeles Local Registrar’s office confirmed that Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born at Cedars Sinai Medical Centre in Beverly Hills on Christmas Day. Elton John is listed as the father and David James Furnish is listed as the mother. She didn’t have any other details and said the birth had not yet been officially registered, so a certificate wasn’t available. Fertility experts say the partner listed as the father is usually the one who provided the sperm”
“top one. and we’ve got this to ourselves at the mo, haven’t we?”
“(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b) any fact relevant to the claimant’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from the claimant by the defendant; or (c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitation does not begin to run until the claimant has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”
“thanks greg - we’re going to give her a knock”
“Hi Simon, How’s it going? I attach THREE draft stories: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 of an investigative series, about how you were hacked by the MoS - and The Sun and the NoTW - at the same time. Please note, that in January this year, we ran similar series about Heather Mills and her associates, Sadie Frost and MoS columnist/ hacking mastermind Tina Weaver, who was summarily sacked by Lord Rothermere, personally. I would like to publish the stories about you on bylineinvestigations.com and byline.com over two or three weeks. Is that OK? You may change the copy, add or delete as you see fit, in track changes, if you will. In addition, you may consider supplying a comment for each story. Please let me know what you think”
“Not as it’s written”
“Please can you send me an email about bylines proposed story and I will ask Sadie for a response”
“Sure, I will put together a proper email this morning and send it to you”
“Dear Mark, It’s Graham Johnson here, the Head of Investigations at Byline. I am writing to you, to ask for a comment from Ms Sadie Frost, whom I believe, is a client of yours”
“We can ‘hand over our dossier evidence’ to you wish (sic)”
“Do you think Sadie Frost will initiate a claim against the MoS?”
“I am away on holiday at the moment”
“On the basis of our current state of knowledge, I can summarise the position regarding [Associated’s] dealings with Mr Whittamore as follows… We have seen no evidence to suggest that any of the information Mr Whittamore may have obtained for our journalists was illegally obtained or that any of our journalists ever asked Mr Whittamore to do anything illegal or were aware that he might be obtaining information for them in an illegal manner.”
“It’s simply wrong… just not accurate… another inaccurate email”
“Yes, I do”, and said that he and Ms Frost Law both left the room to discuss their “disappointment”
“It was a short meeting, because Evan promised to provide information and evidence and he didn’t, and there wasn’t much point to it…”, and he described it as “a fairly typical Evan meeting, when he promises stuff and doesn’t deliver and in fact what he wants is evidence to be provided himself”
“I didn’t want to irritate him… I wanted to be calm and professional… I just wanted him to produce the evidence, which he never did”
“I hereby certify that: 1. I am the relevant legal representative within the meaning ofPractice Direction 57AC . 2. I am satisfied that the purpose and proper content of trial witness statements and proper practice in relation to their preparation, including the witness confirmation required by paragraph 4.1 ofPractice Direction 57AC , have been discussed with and explained to Mr Gavin Burrows. 3. I believe this trial witness statement complies withPractice Direction 57AC and paragraphs 18.1 and 18.2 ofPractice Direction 32 and that it has been prepared in accordance with the Statement of Best Practice contained in the Appendix toPractice Direction 57AC .”
“I cannot conceive of any reason why I would withhold something from the board, and I never have”, and denying that anyone “from Paul Dacre down” expected her to mislead the board or others. A2.154. In the same section of cross-examination, she was also challenged on the scope of what was said to Leveson about the use of private investigators/enquiry agents and the extent to which responses (including provision of ledgers rather than invoices) reflected the compressed timetable and limits of what she was asked to provide. She maintained that she did what she could on the material and instructions then available and that criticisms of adequacy were not the same thing as deliberate falsehood. A2.155. Ms Hartley was not a witness of fact in relation to any of the pleaded instances of UIG relied upon by the Claimants. The Claimants have suggested that the relevance of her evidence arises, rather, from her role in (i) the preparation of material in 2011 for the Internal Review and for Associated’s response to the Leveson Inquiry, and (ii) the evidence she gave (in writing and orally) to the Leveson Inquiry, which the Claimants allege to have been deliberately false or materially misleading and which they rely upon, in part, in support of their case on deliberate concealment to resist Associated’s limitation defence. A2.156. During the trial, on13 February 2026 , following the evidence of Mr Dacre and Ms Hartley, I required the Claimants to file a note identifying (i) the factual findings they would invite the Court to make about the evidence of those witnesses, and (ii) the issues (and in particular the issues identified in the trial matrices) to which each proposed finding was said to relate. I explained that the purpose of the note was to obtain clarity as to relevance and to ensure that cross-examination of subsequent witnesses remained focused on matters requiring determination, given the pressures on the trial timetable. A2.157. The Claimants’ note, dated16 February 2026 , identified the relevance of Ms Hartley’s evidence primarily by reference to limitation/deliberate concealment and (more generally) aggravated damages. So far as Ms Hartley was concerned, the Claimants identified the principal findings they would invite the Court to make as including: (a) that her Leveson evidence concerning Steve Whittamore (and Associated’s knowledge of illegality) was deliberately misleading (and, they contend, knowingly false); (b) that, when drafting her Internal Review, Ms Hartley had seen and relied upon an aide-memoire dated18 October 2011 recording information Paul Field provided to Eddie Young (recording, amongst other matters, requests for ex-directory numbers, friends and family information and mobile phone conversions) (“the Field aide-memoire”); and (c) that certain payment ledgers (including those generated in June 2011) were not disclosed to the Leveson Inquiry, which the Claimants contend supports their deliberate concealment case (subject to their stated intention to reassess after further evidence from managing editors). A2.158. Associated’s responsive note, dated19 February 2026 , disputed the relevance of much of the Claimants’ approach. It emphasised that the pleaded “Leveson Lies” case was confined to specific alleged lies pleaded in the Reply, and contended that (as shown by the Schedule appended to the response) most of the pleaded “lies” had not been put to Ms Hartley (or Mr Dacre) in cross-examination. Associated accepted that the pleaded Whittamore paragraph relied upon by the Claimants against Ms Hartley raised a pleaded issue requiring determination, but disputed that a broader case based on the adequacy of investigations, or on “materially misleading omissions” more generally, was pleaded or capable of supporting a finding of deliberate concealment. A2.159. The relevance dispute reflected in the mid-trial notes was carried forward into closing submissions. In their written closing submissions, the Claimants maintained that (together with the evidence of Mr Dacre and Mr Wright) Ms Hartley’s evidence bears upon deliberate concealment and constructive knowledge, and they maintained their case that the Leveson “we have seen no evidence…” paragraph should be found to have been materially misleading (and, as they contend, knowingly false) in light of information said to have been available through the Internal Review process, including the Field aide-memoire material and issues said to arise from what was (and was not) disclosed to the Leveson Inquiry. A2.160. Associated’s closing submissions, by contrast, contend that the Claimants’ pleaded “Leveson Lies” case was not pursued as pleaded and criticise the cross-examination as insufficiently focused on the pleaded allegations, including a failure squarely to put the “central allegation” (as Associated characterises it) that senior witnesses lied to Leveson about phone-hacking. More specifically as to Ms Hartley, Associated accepts that the pleaded Whittamore paragraph (the “we have seen no evidence…” paragraph) raises a pleaded issue requiring determination, but submits that much of the questioning in fact amounted to criticisms of the adequacy of investigation or omissions more generally rather than a properly put allegation of a lie in the strict sense of knowledge of falsity at the time. A2.161. Associated also maintains in closing submissions that, properly analysed, the alleged “Leveson Lies” are not capable of supporting concealment within s.32(1)(b), because they did not conceal any fact without which any Claimant’s cause of action would be incomplete; and, in relation to the Field material, Associated submits that Ms Hartley was aware of the substance of what Mr Field had said, whether by reference to a shorter note or otherwise. A2.162. My assessment of Ms Hartley is that she was a careful and conscientious witness. She was careful to answer questions by reference to what she actually recalled, and said clearly when she had no recollection. She was also careful to distinguish between what she remembered and what she was having to infer from later-retrieved materials. In relation to her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, she accepted, candidly, that what is now apparent from the documents and evidence available in these proceedings meant that the “We have seen no evidence…” formulation was not one she could stand by now, and she expressed clear regret about its inclusion: she said that she was “not happy with that paragraph” and “wish[ed] it hadn’t been included”, adding that if she had had time to go through everything in the way she has during this litigation “it would not have been in that way”
“If I’d understood the position as I do now, we wouldn’t have said that”
“I cannot conceive of any reason why I would withhold something from the board, and I never have,” and further that there was “absolutely no question of anybody, from Paul Dacre down, expecting me to mislead the board”
“[Mr Dacre] the Editor in Chief banned all use of external search agencies in April 2007 with immediate effect. Since 2007 we have approved the use of two subscription tracing services… and The Mail on Sunday also uses a researcher to support The Mail on Sunday’s two staff reporters based in the US. As far as I am aware the rules we imposed have always been observed on The Mail on Sunday”
“The reason why ‘Mail on Sunday’ was written on the note was simple – that was the destination of the hacked data”
“My assistant transcribed the tape recordings of the voicemails because I didn’t have time as I was focused on monitoring the voicemails”
“I identified and located Simon Hughes’ boyfriend exclusively for the Mail on Sunday”
“3. Subject to Paragraph 4 below, the Claimants are granted relief from sanctions and shall be permitted to call Mr Burrows as a witness at the trial for the purposes of giving oral evidence in chief confined to (a) the subject matter of the Burrows Hearsay Documents insofar as (b) they address relevant live issues in the litigation (being the pleaded allegations insofar as they have been pursued with a relevant witness at the trial) as set out in the Annex to this Order. 4. The permission granted to the Claimants in paragraph 3 above is subject to the following conditions: (a) The Claimants’ examination of Mr Burrows be confined to the matters identified in the annexed list of issues. (b) The Claimants shall not be permitted to rely upon, introduce, or seek to adduce any further statements, documents, or alleged accounts said to emanate from Mr Burrows or to ask questions of him about any issues that are not relevant to the issues that remain live in the litigation. (c) Save and to the extent agreed with the Defendant, Mr Burrows’ examination in chief must be conducted with non-leading questions and the Claimants will be bound by Mr Burrows’ answers in the ordinary way. The Claimants may not impeach his evidence, deploy prior inconsistent statements, or treat him as hostile unless, and until, the Court is satisfied – on an application made during examination-in-chief – that he is hostile in the strict legal sense. (d) Nothing in this permission entitles the Claimants to circumvent the statutory scheme governing hearsay evidence. In particular, having called Mr Burrows as their witness, no prior statements of Mr Burrows may be adduced as evidence save in accordance with s.6 CEA 1995 and, in support of their case at trial, the Claimants will be limited to the admissible evidence that Mr Burrows gives in evidence in chief, cross-examination and any re-examination. (e) Permission does not extend to any reconsideration of the Claimants’ failed Burrows Further Hearsay Application. The Claimants may not seek to achieve indirectly through oral evidence what they have been refused directly by way of late hearsay reliance (f) The Defendant will be entitled to cross-examine Mr Burrows in the usual way. (g) Any re-examination of Mr Burrows by the Claimants will be subject to the usual restrictions and time limited as set out below…” (a) The Claimants’ examination of Mr Burrows be confined to the matters identified in the annexed list of issues. (b) The Claimants shall not be permitted to rely upon, introduce, or seek to adduce any further statements, documents, or alleged accounts said to emanate from Mr Burrows or to ask questions of him about any issues that are not relevant to the issues that remain live in the litigation. (c) Save and to the extent agreed with the Defendant, Mr Burrows’ examination in chief must be conducted with non-leading questions and the Claimants will be bound by Mr Burrows’ answers in the ordinary way. The Claimants may not impeach his evidence, deploy prior inconsistent statements, or treat him as hostile unless, and until, the Court is satisfied – on an application made during examination-in-chief – that he is hostile in the strict legal sense. (d) Nothing in this permission entitles the Claimants to circumvent the statutory scheme governing hearsay evidence. In particular, having called Mr Burrows as their witness, no prior statements of Mr Burrows may be adduced as evidence save in accordance with s.6 CEA 1995 and, in support of their case at trial, the Claimants will be limited to the admissible evidence that Mr Burrows gives in evidence in chief, cross-examination and any re-examination. (e) Permission does not extend to any reconsideration of the Claimants’ failed Burrows Further Hearsay Application. The Claimants may not seek to achieve indirectly through oral evidence what they have been refused directly by way of late hearsay reliance (f) The Defendant will be entitled to cross-examine Mr Burrows in the usual way. (g) Any re-examination of Mr Burrows by the Claimants will be subject to the usual restrictions and time limited as set out below…”
“Previous statement of witness (1) Subject as follows, the provisions of this Act as to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings apply equally (but with any necessary modifications) in relation to a previous statement made by a person called as a witness in the proceedings. (2) A party who has called or intends to call a person as a witness in civil proceedings may not in those proceedings adduce evidence of a previous statement made by that person, except— (a) with the leave of the court, or (b) for the purpose of rebutting a suggestion that his evidence has been fabricated. This shall not be construed as preventing a witness statement (that is, a written statement of oral evidence which a party to the proceedings intends to lead) from being adopted by a witness in giving evidence or treated as his evidence. (3) Where in the case of civil proceedings section 3, 4 or 5 of theCriminal Procedure Act 1865 applies, which make provision as to— (a) how far a witness may be discredited by the party producing him, (b) the proof of contradictory statements made by a witness, and (c) cross-examination as to previous statements in writing, this Act does not authorise the adducing of evidence of a previous inconsistent or contradictory statement otherwise than in accordance with those sections. This is without prejudice to any provision made by rules of court under section 3 above (power to call witness for cross-examination on hearsay statement). (4) Nothing in this Act affects any of the rules of law as to the circumstances in which, where a person called as a witness in civil proceedings is cross-examined on a document used by him to refresh his memory, that document may be made evidence in the proceedings. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a statement of any description referred to above from being admissible by virtue of section 1 as evidence of the matters stated”. (a) with the leave of the court, or (b) for the purpose of rebutting a suggestion that his evidence has been fabricated. This shall not be construed as preventing a witness statement (that is, a written statement of oral evidence which a party to the proceedings intends to lead) from being adopted by a witness in giving evidence or treated as his evidence. (a) how far a witness may be discredited by the party producing him, (b) the proof of contradictory statements made by a witness, and (c) cross-examination as to previous statements in writing, this Act does not authorise the adducing of evidence of a previous inconsistent or contradictory statement otherwise than in accordance with those sections. This is without prejudice to any provision made by rules of court under section 3 above (power to call witness for cross-examination on hearsay statement). A3.62. ss.3-5Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (“CPA 1865”) provide: “How far witness may be discredited by the party producing. s.3 A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by general evidence of bad character; but he may, in case the witness shall in the opinion of the judge prove adverse, contradict him by other evidence, or, by leave of the judge, prove that he has made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present testimony; but before such last-mentioned proof can be given the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, must be mentioned to the witness, and he must be asked whether or not he has made such statement. As to proof of contradictory statements of adverse witness. s.4 If a witness, upon cross-examination as to a former statement made by him relative to the subject matter of the indictment or proceeding, and inconsistent with his present testimony, does not distinctly admit that he has made such statement, proof may be given that he did in fact make it; but before such proof can be given the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, must be mentioned to the witness, and he must be asked whether or not he has made such statement. Cross-examinations as to previous statements in writing. s.5 A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing, or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the indictment or proceeding, without such writing being shown to him; but if it is intended to contradict such witness by the writing, his attention must, before such contradictory proof can be given, be called to those parts of the writing which are to be used for the purpose of so contradicting him: Provided always, that it shall be competent for the judge, at any time during the trial, to require the production of the writing for his inspection, and he may thereupon make such use of it for the purposes of the trial as he may think fit.”