Daily Mail ‘used me and my son to give them credibility for supporting a black family’, Doreen Lawrence says
Baroness Doreen Lawrence reacted Daily MailHe claimed that the newspaper pretended to support him in getting justice for his son.
Giving evidence in the High Court in his case against the newspaper’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). Daily Mailthe colleague said the publication just wanted “the credibility of supporting a black family.”
Baroness Lawrence is known for her campaigns following the racist murder of her 18-year-old son Stephen in 1993.
He is one of a group of prominent figures who have taken legal action against ANL for alleged illegal information collection.
The broadcaster strongly denies wrongdoing and defends the allegations made by a group of seven people, including the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and her husband David Furnish.
Lady Lawrence’s allegations relate to five articles published between 1997 and 2007.
His lawyers claim he was “extensively targeted” by private detectives and ANL.
On Monday, Lady Lawrence told the High Court in London that giving evidence in court was “very painful” because trust had been built in her. Daily Mail and journalist Stephen Wright.
He added: “Because there are very few people I trust, there are very few people I talk to.
“I thought he and I had a relatively good relationship and that I had been played with for a long time.”
Lady Lawrence continued: “To find out, after all this time, that the level of trust I had built up had lied to me all this time and pretended to support my cause and to support justice for Stephen.”
Peer also said she felt like she was never able to “properly grieve for my son” because of her experience with the police.
He added: “Were they really fighting for justice for my son or were they just pretending to sell their papers?
“It seemed like they were supporting us at the time. So how many other black families did they support?”
“They used me and my son to give them credit for supporting a black family. But ultimately I don’t think they did that.”
The court heard Lady Lawrence did not complain about the five articles at the time they were published because it was not something she had considered.
He said: “But who do I complain to because it’s not at the forefront of my mind at the moment.
“How the police handled Stephen’s case is constantly on my mind.
“I am making a complaint to the police, I think they are probably leaking information.
“I didn’t think of that.
“When you’re in pain, when you’re suffering, you don’t think, ‘I must definitely challenge the articles in the newspaper.’
“I am contesting this through the police; I believe they are the ones leaking information.”
In his witness statement, he said he felt “revictimized” by people “who I thought were my allies and friends”.
Antony White KC, representing ANL, said in written submissions that the allegations regarding Lady Lawrence were “completely denied” and “unsupported by the available evidence”.
He added: “They are the product of an attempt by members of the plaintiffs’ investigation team, adopted by Baroness Lawrence and her legal representatives, to present a case against Associated for the unlawful collection of information based on wholly false and/or discredited information, none of which was presented as proper admissible evidence before the court.
“The fact is that the information contained in each of the articles was obtained entirely through legitimate reporting and based on sources identified by Associated in its defense and evidence.”
He also said that “with respect to virtually any article that purports to be the product of phone hacking or wiretapping,” the publisher can call a witness or witnesses to explain how the article was sourced.
“From top to bottom, Associated’s editors, desk heads, and journalists, many of whom have been with the company for many years, even decades, line up to deny plaintiffs’ allegations of habitual and widespread wiretapping, wiretapping, and gossiping within the organization, while also acknowledging the use of TPIs (third-party investigators) in appropriate places to obtain information before April 2007, when their use was largely prohibited,” the attorney continued in his written submissions.
The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to conclude in March and a written decision will be issued at a later date.
