Legal Analysis on Harry’s most recent court case

[MamoruHisaishi]

Here's a good article from the Guardian that provides legal analysis on Harry’s lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/27/has-time-run-out-for-prince-harrys-case-against-murdoch-press

That is a good article, and pretty clear about the issues.

Harry's account does contradict itself regarding the timeline. I do personally find it does strain credibility that William never spoke to Harry at all about his & Catherine's concerns about hacking, and for Harry to check in case he'd been hacked?? For all the brothers relationship issues now, they did appear close for years. Judging by how pissed off William was about (going to the Police), he would have spoken to his younger brother about the situation.

Harry being in Afghanistan as an excuse for not being aware of it, doesn't hold water for me as an excuse. Leveson was massive - it was everywhere. Other soldiers would have discussed it.

He has every right to bring the case, I just find his statements do contradict themselves. It's truly a case of "what did the Prince know, and when did he know it?"

Another example of ‘his truth’?

At least 'his truth' and 'her truth' line up well I suppose 😂

I find the language about an out-of-court settlement (something that happens routinely) as a "secret deal" somewhat inappropriate.

I read somewhere - can't remember source - that Prince William's out of court settlement was in the region of £1m, and that it was paid just before the (then) Cambridges made a donation of £1.1m to Invictus. Anyone else see that? And how does that stack up with the denial of a "secret deal" - no settlement, or just not a hooky one as the choice of language suggests, or simply not at that point?

With the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how wise it was for Harry to abandon the out-of-court negotiations, though I can see why he wanted there to be court action. But given his murky timelines, this is a fight that might have been better left to the other complainants.

Afghanistan probably was a factor though, but I don't see that it would have knocked out the amount of time that he appears to be suggesting

I find the language about an out-of-court settlement (something that happens routinely) as a "secret deal" somewhat inappropriate.

I agree. I saw someone refer to it as "hush money" which I thought was ridiculous.

I would agree. Talking about an out of court settlement (something all claimants are asked to try to achieve) as a "secret deal" is negative PR spin from some with an axe to grind.

And I've seen in several places now about the then Cambridge's donation to Invictus.

I think all claimants have a legitimate claim, I hope the focus on Harry and the lack of clarity with his timelines and conflicting statements don't damage the others.

I think the most damaging part of the case is the main prosecution witness who claims his statement that he was tasked to hack phones , has now said it was faked. Very odd situation

I have no doubt he has just cause for complaint. The press behaved in a despicable and criminal manner but Harry thinks he is the messiah, sent to save the world from the evil press. Fair enough if that's what he wants, but it's the way he drags his family into the row, presenting everything they do - especially William - in the most negative light possible. Presenting himself as the only one with moral courage.
Apparently 90% of these type of cases are settled out of court. no way would William want the indignity of dragging the families dirty linen through the courts. Absolutely self defeating and pointless. And again Harry couldn't resist dragging Camilla into it. Give it up Harry, she's being crowned Queen on Saturday. Sure there was a PR campaign in her support, but I think she's shown herself worthy now. She makes Charles happy.

Of course there would have been a PR campaign to rehabilitate camilla but for Harry to say it was at his expense is ridiculous Why would the RF want anyone of its members smeared. Paranoid nonsense. Leave of the ganja harry

Yeeeeah...I quite like Jim Waterson, but the Guardian's fact-checkers seem to have started the bank holiday early.

The legal argument boils down to this: when did Prince Harry fully understand that he was potentially a victim of phone hacking? And then did he start his legal claim in time?

It doesn't matter when he "fully understood" it. That's not what he has to show in court. He has to show either that his claim was issued within the required timeframe (for some of his claims this is likely to be the case, as some instances are from 2016), or, if not, that he can make out that one of the specific grounds in the Limitation Act for granting an extension exist. "Not fully understanding" is not a ground for extension. He needs to show that News UK deliberately concealed the essential facts of the claim, and he couldn't have reasonably discovered those facts, to the extent that it was not possible for him to make out the facts of his claim within the 6 years.

Sadie Frost won some of her claims with the facts being that an article appeared about a particular private matter, she hadn't spoken to anyone else about that matter, and her assistant had left voicemails about that matter. Harry needs to show that this level of factual information was not available to him because of News UK's deliberate concealment.

The time limit seems unfair - if you're the victim of a crime, and you have some proof of it, the why does there have to be a limit as to when you can bring a case? The criminals are just handed a getaway.

It's a time limit for civil claims, not criminal ones. England (largely) doesn't have a statute of limitations for criminal law. The civil limitation period is because justice is more efficient and effective if it is prompt - it's harder for a defendant to defend a claim from decades ago, and it's likely to take more resources from the court system.

The Cambridges didn't "donate" to Invictus.

That was money folded into, and then separated out of the foundations because of the Sussexes leaving and those being dedicated (protected) funds. This was a similar approach taken to protecting the fundraising from the Hib cookbook initiative so the Cambridges foundation wouldn't "absorb" it.

@Dolma thanks for explaining!

Do you know anything about civil law? The phone hackers could be brought to criminal justice if there was sufficient evidence after such a long time. There is no limitation on time in criminal cases.

In civil cases its 3 years from the incident occuring or 3 years from the claimant becoming aware of the incident. This is where harrys case is rocky. He is claiming he wasn't aware in 2012, because of a 'secret agreement' keeping this knowledge from him, and he became aware of it in 2019. However his statement has inconsistencies with his first statement, according to the judge, and judges do not like inconsistencies, and the 31 page document was not requested by the court, so may be thrown out anyway.

In civil cases its 3 years from the incident occuring or 3 years from the claimant becoming aware of the incident.

That's the limitation period for personal injury claims. Harry does not appear to be alleging that The Sun broke his legs. The limitation period for privacy claims is 6 years from the damage.

@dolma True I only know about negligence claims. I do at least know its not criminal.

Looking at the case and the comments of the judge on the inconsistencies (aka lies) Harry is on very shaky ground.
He says he was told not to pursue a claim in 2012, but he says too he knew nothing about it until 2019. That is a major hurdle and could he really claim he was actually prevented as a defence against his inconsistencies? Looking at the judges very terse comments it doesn't look good. Add to that the main witness for the prosecution has retracted his 'statement' saying it was falsified. Does he have solid evidence. His brother accepting a settlement doesn't mean there was wrongdoing (although I'd guess there was). Does he realise the defence barrister will rip him to shreds in the witness box?

I don't even think phone hacking goes on any longer in the same way. Far worse is social media. Harry and his crusade isn't going to end well unless his other cases are far stronger than this one.

Even his application to the court to submit this statement, wasn't made, so the whole statement could be thrown out.

It looks to me Harry has his crusade and is not listening to the legal team to drop it.

Negligence is 6 years.

@kirinm Negligence is 3 years. Up to the age 18 in children if a parent is bringing the case on their behalf. The young adult has 3 years from 18-21 to bring the case on their own behalf.

No that is limitation for injury.

I literally deal with negligence and contract claims and limitation arguments every day of my working life.

@polkadotdalmation No, I don't, that's why I asked.

Looking at the case and the comments of the judge on the inconsistencies (aka lies) Harry is on very shaky ground.
Inconsistencies don't necessarily mean lies.

Anyway, even if his court case/s fail, he is at least trying. He's not settling out of convenience. Maybe a bit gung-ho, but still.

MORALLY he is in the right, so I applaud him for at least trying. It's a mammoth task he is undertaking (as are all the others).

Isn’t the person who retracted their statement in the case against the Mail group, not this case, which is against the Sun?

Mail group case - Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, Harry et al.

Sun case - Hugh Grant & Harry.

Two separate cases.