Anthony White KC, representing the publisher, told the court: “The particular tragedy of the case is that the ‘evidence’ of Mr Burrows which was used to persuade Baroness Lawrence, the trophy claimant so prized by the claimants’ lawyers and research team… was not ultimately relied on by the claimants.”
It left her, in the judge’s words, presenting “limited evidence” to the court. He said Lady Lawrence was asking the court to “infer” wrongdoing and that her legal team’s suggestion that cash payments were made to corrupt officers was “entirely speculative” and not backed up by evidence.
Lady Lawrence had never expected the case to reach court, having been convinced by Hacked Off and her legal team that Associated Newspapers would settle before it ever went that far.
She said she was angry that she was being “made to fight” when all she wanted was the truth and an apology. But the Mail had nothing to apologise for.
David Sherborne, the barrister representing the claimants, said during the hearing that Lady Lawrence felt “used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool”. The question she must now contemplate is, by whom?
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.telegraph.co.uk ’
