Part 2: The Press & The Royals a discussion

[Whaeanui]

Following on from this thread: Part 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4786923-the-press-the-royals-a-discussion?page=1

As we know, the press often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. They have also hacked private communications, with cases ongoing. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch-although not always.

For discussion: do we think it is possible for the royal family to stay relevant and in the publics mind without their unhealthy relationship with the media, and how can they achieve that? How will previous and current legal proceedings alter the relationship?
Please do not intentionally derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular family members or if they deserve it. I would really like to continue this discussion on how the royal family and the press interact, as above.

Undoubtedly everything hangs together better when a QC (KC?) writes it!

I think. THINK… that Prince Harry might be hopping mad with the British press. It’s subtle, but I can read the signs. I’m very perceptive like that, me.

Something I’d be grateful for a lawyerly comment on …

In his statement, H doesn’t seem to be describing much hacking of his own phone, beyond one message. Instead, he is talking about the hacking of his girlfriends’ phones, and of this mother’s phone. Does he actually have a cause of action for this? It must of course have added awful stresses to his relationships, but I was wondering if this is direct enough damage for an action to succeed? Are knock-on effects from the hacking of other people’s phones enough?
Morally yes of course, but legally??

I was thinking that.

Maybe it’s relevant in terms of if he could prove it had a detrimental effect to him, or it o it happened to them because of him.

As has been said, I’m guessing he’s paid top dollar for his counsel, so they must see some merit to it? Or maybe they just act on his instructions 🤷‍♀️

I’m adding some reporting from todays proceedings.

—

Mr Sherborne argues that because of the assurances the Duke of Sussex received from the royal family that phone hacking from NGN had been “done and dusted,” Harry could not have known the extent to which he had a claim.
“His circumstances are exceptionl partly because he’s relying on others. He’s part of an institution, he was kept out of the loop as he said and told what he had to do - he’s not criticising the family for that but that is what it was,” Mr Sherborne told the court.
Mr Sherborne adds that he then went on to 2016 when he left the army - during which time he was in acting service and unable to bring the claim.
However, prior to his wedding he had been given the greenlight from the Queen to take up his own case on phone hacking after finding out he had been targeted and was told the royal director of communications would handle this with NGN.

Lawyers for Prince Harry say emails between royal family and NGN ‘consistent with secret agreement'
Harry's lawyers are now refuting NGN's counter-claim that there is no secret agreement between NGN and the royal family.
Mr Sherborne has pointed to evidence provided by the defence showing emails between former director of royal communications Sally Osman and NGN executives. Mr Sherborne claims that the emails are consistent with a secret agreement being in place. The emails mention the two parties "reaching an agreement without involving lawyers."
Mr Sherborne said this is consistent with a secret agreement and shows "this wasnt dealt with by the legal department, it was dealt with at a much higher level."

Emails about phone hacking allegations between executives from The Sun and senior staff in the royal family discuss “finding a resolution without lawyers.”
In a 2017 email to CEO of News Corporation Robert Thompson, former director of royal communications Sally Osman said: “The fact that we can have this conversation, with the Queen's full authority and knowledge of the scale and effect of hacking and surveillance on her family, their staff, associates, friends and family, is important with a view of resolution in the near future.”
However in a March 2018 email, Ms Osman, seeking the arrangement of a meeting with Mr Thompson to discuss the matter said: “The hope is still to find a resolution, without involving lawyers. However, if we do not receive a response and a sense of what might be done and by when, then we will need to reconsider.”

—

Duke’s lawyers accuse NGN of cover ups of phone hacking
Mr Sherborne is listing different alleged lies and concealment by NGN staff and executives over phone hacking dating back more than 20 years which he argues prove the Duke of Sussex and others couldn't have come forward earlier.
Mr Sherborne pointed to the 2006 phone hacking case involving News of the World where the now defunct paper's royal editor was arrested - he highlights lies staff told to cover up tracks even after arrests were made.

This article goes into details of the correspondence between the Queens director of communications Sally Osman and NGN executives

—

Osman then suggested another meeting but asked NewsCorp to circulate beforehand its proposal for resolving the compensation issue. A month later she had breakfast with Brooks but in May 2018, with no sign of a proposal after nearly two years of correspondence, Osman brought in the lawyers:
‘We are still very much of the mind that we don’t want this to become embroiled in legal negotiation but it would clearly assist if our lawyers now spoke to yours.’
No further exchanges have been made public but the sequence leaves little room for doubt about the disdainful attitude of Rupert Murdoch’s most senior executive to the British royal family, even in circumstances where his company had admitted illegal actions.

In a three-day hearing before Mr Justice Fancourt, lawyers for the Sun newspaper are attempting to have hacking claims by Prince Harry and Hugh Grant struck out on the grounds that they are too late – beyond the legal time limit. The prince’s lawyers are arguing that one reason his claim was not made earlier was delays of the kind evident in this correspondence – delays that appear to have been caused by the Sun’s owners.

bylineinvestigates.com/2023/04/26/sun-hacking-case-day-two-how-a-top-murdoch-executive-left-buckingham-palace-talking-to-the-hand/

I think Harry’s team is trying to have it both ways. Apparently, the e-mails prove the existence of a secret agreement - but it’s not much of a pact if the other side won’t even take the Palace’s calls, is it? It
could equally be said to point to the non-existence of any accord.

don’t the emails just demonstrate that the RF wanted a quiet settlement, without having to go full defcon? And when that approach failed, they threatened to bring in the lawyers ?

I agree

I don’t.

Here the CEO of Newscorp refers to his understanding they would wait till after civil cases had resolved, as is stated in Harry’s claim:

Sally, Genuinely sorry about the lack of a reply – your note was lost in the mountain of memos I seem to get each day. Am fresh from a Board meeting and changing planes in Dallas on the way to speak at Media Conference in Florida. My understanding was that we would wait for the civil cases to be resolved and, thankfully, we seem to be in the final phases of that process. I’m not sure of the precise timing but the UK team has the best sense of how they are unfolding. I should be in London either around March 20 or in mid-April if either of those dates works for you. All the best, Robert’
Osman then suggested another meeting but asked NewsCorp to circulate beforehand its proposal for resolving the compensation issue. A month later she had breakfast with Brooks but in May 2018, with no sign of a proposal after nearly two years of correspondence, Osman brought in the lawyers:
‘We are still very much of the mind that we don’t want this to become embroiled in legal negotiation but it would clearly assist if our lawyers now spoke to yours.’

They actually had a meeting which took place in London between Thomson, Osman and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt. Another meeting with Brooks, and several emails. They were clearly dragging it out deliberately.

To try and imply that all this was, was missed calls, is disingenuous at best.

There was no proposal (Newscorp never made one) and no meaningful dialogue. It seems that all it was was wishful thinking on the part of Osman (the palace) -they thought they could resolve the matter privately and Murdoch played them.

I agree he played them, but they were given at least a verbal agreement that they would follow through after their civil cases. It wasn’t wishful thinking. They trusted that senior executives wouldn’t lie to The Queen’s representatives. But they did. I’m astounded they actually behaved this way and that few people seem to care.

Yes. It all falls under the law of confidence, and specifically the misuse of private information. "Misusing private information" is the main cause of action for protecting private information, it covers both publishing private information, and intrusion into someone's privacy.

Hacking into someone's own voicemail and listening to their messages is inherently such an intrusion, even if nothing is ever done with that information.

Hacking into someone else's phone (or any other unlawful information gathering, such as bugging and blagging) and publishing a story based on a third party's private information, which you obtained through the hacking, is also a misuse of that third party's information. Doesn't matter that it wasn't their phone, just matters that it was their private information.

There's also a strategic advantage to establishing that a particular newspaper has engaged in widespread phone hacking, even for people that aren't the claimant - if you are relying on a "where else could they have gotten that information from?" argument (as opposed to a "here's an email where they specifically talk about hacking my phone" argument), it makes your argument stronger to be able to point to this widespread phone hacking, and say that on the balance of probabilities you were one of the many victims.

Thank you Dolma - that makes
perfect sense.

That makes sense.

In cases listed this you’re hardly likely to find masses of ‘evidence’ in terms of concrete emails/videos of people admitting it.

So makes sense to cast the net wide to paint the bigger picture.

William gave his Jason K private correspondence to use in evidence against M. Ofcourse, Meghan still won. So William promoted him to Chief Executive Officer of The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in January 2022 and is now Board Member for The Earthshot, a foundation which William founded.

For a remind of the what we the media is, here's a good podcast.
https://wondery.com/shows/british-scandal/episode/8860-the-murdoch-phone-hacking-turning-the-screws/

She won that because it was an open and shut case as far as the copyright I think.

So the evidence JK gave wasn’t actually relevant to the judge.

But it’s interesting that people think William was the villain in that piece, when it was Meghan who lied in a sworn statement, and there was evidence from Harry saying they ‘had to make it look like they had nothing to do with it’

It makes me question whether there’s other stones he may have thrown, and then hid his hands, tbh.

I also can’t think imagine if it were, for instance an Andrew case, that people would be happy for royals to prohibit their staff from giving evidence which would implicate him in a lie.

William gave his Jason K private correspondence to use in evidence against M.

Is this related to Meghan's action against the Daily Mail? the one about her father's letter? I'd like to read about this, please. I was fascinated by this at the time!

So the evidence JK gave wasn’t actually relevant to the judge.

This part.

William gave his Jason K private correspondence to use in evidence against M.

No, Jason Knauf gave evidence to the court of his own personal dealings with Omid Scobie and the Sussexes when he was working for the Sussexes. He also provided copies of his personal emails to and from the Sussexes from when he was working for them. None of this was William’s information - he was not a party to any of the emails disclosed.

And I thought people want Harry;’s court case to reveal the truth of what went on behind the scenes, despite what it being said publicly? That’s what Jason Kanuf’s evidence did.

It’s not quite that cut and dried. The evidence that Jason Knauf’s gave was relevant to the issues in the case, as that encompasses matters both relevant to the claim and the defence.

One plank of ANL’s defence was that Meghan had voluntarily put private information into the public domain via Finding Freedom, and that this undermined her claim that she had an expectation that her letter should be kept private. Meghan’s response to this was that neither she nor her staff had anything to do with Finding Freedom.

Jason Knauf knew that this was wrong, as he had passed information to Omid Scobie at Meghan’s express request. Hence his witness statement.

If the case had proceeded to a trail, all of this would have been have gone through in great detail by the examination and cross-examination of the relevant witnesses. The judge however decided before the case got to that stage that Meghan’s claim for breach of copyright was so strong that ANL had not reasonably prospect of defending it, so no trial was needed.

Jason Kanuf’s evidence therefore wasn’t relevant to Meghan’s copyright claim - which is the claim she won on, but that wasn’t the only claim she made in her case.

Thanks Serenster

Also, in relation to Jason Knauf’s involvement, it wasn’t just that he knew Meghan was not being truthful in her statements to the court. She also dragged her staff into those statements, which included him.

For example, in a signed statement Meghan’s solicitor denied that Meghan had spoken to Omid Scobie or given authority to anyone to speak to him on her behalf. Meghan herself denied that she or her staff had been given any opportunity to fact check the book.

Imagine if your former boss was putting signed statements in court that were not truthful not just about what she herself had done, but also untruthful about you, too? Meghan was the one who implicated her staff in her story. If she didn’t want the truth coming out, it might have been better to stick to it in the first place.

One plank of ANL’s defence was that Meghan had voluntarily put private information into the public domain via Finding Freedom, and that this undermined her claim that she had an expectation that her letter should be kept private

What is the connection between Finding Freedom and the article which revealed parts of her letter to her father? I haven’t read the book. Does it mention the letter? Why is the information regarding the book relevant to the case about her fathers letter being published?
Also the judge did say something regarding Knaufs evidence supporting her somehow I remember reading it… I’ll try and find it.

As per Serenster's post:

One plank of ANL’s defence was that Meghan had voluntarily put private information into the public domain via Finding Freedom, and that this undermined her claim that she had an expectation that her letter should be kept private. Meghan’s response to this was that neither she nor her staff had anything to do with Finding Freedom.

Jason Knauf knew that this was wrong, as he had passed information to Omid Scobie at Meghan’s express request. Hence his witness statement.

If you're horrified at lying to the Queen's representatives, surely you must be utterly scandalized at evidence of lying to the court?

Yes to what Dolma said above. To explain it a bit further, there is a long-established legal; principle that if you voluntarily put information about yourself into the public domain, it then difficult for you to complain when other information about you is also revealed.

There was a famous case about Tom Jones in the 1970s when he tried to prevent stories about his sex drugs and rock and roll behaviour being published in the Mirror. He wasn’t successful - the court held that those who welcome and seek publicity bearing upon their private lives so long as it shows them in a positive light can’t really complain of an invasion of their privacy if it shows them in an unfavourable light. In other words, if you court publicity but only on your own terms, you live by the sword and die by the sword.

So, ANL argued, if Meghan had voluntarily breached her own privacy by giving the writers of Finding Freedom stories she wanted then to print, the court was entitled to look sceptically at the claim that her letter to her father was an invasion of her privacy.