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

He is in the wrong for dragging his brother once again and implying that his ‘secret deal’ was something underhanded instead of a normal private settlement that millions of other people have done.

Lol, settling out of convenience? I think most people would agree that William (and Kate) not wanting to publicize their private correspondence in a courtroom is not settling out of convenience.

What he has done is cast blame on his family (again) and so the focus has been on his family instead of the wrongdoings of the media.

Well I'm talking about negligence causing injury. In which case it is correct. I'm not talking about negligence in other areas. I'm involved in an injury case and it's what our solicitor told us.

Your trying to pretend you have some amazing understanding of the law and what you actually have is an ongoing injury claim whilst questioning someone else's understanding of the law.

It's insane that people here would rather a newspaper known to hack phones - not just Harry but others - win on a limitation point than be found liable for something purely because it is Harry.

It is a technical point regarding the time for bringing the claim, the court won't even consider the merits of the actual claim if the claim was issued out of time, but still better that Harry loses because he should've known earlier than the papers lose for carrying out such underhand potentially criminal acts.

@MamoruHisaishi Yes, of course Catherine and William would settle out of court. They definitely wouldn't want private conversations broadcast to the world! If Harry goes in the witness box with his proven inability to keep his lies straight, it will be a disaster. Judges just don't like people who are 'inconsistent'. His arrogance is boundless as he thinks because he is a prince, he can do as he likes. His arrogance showed itself when Tom Bradby asked why don't you give up the titles?

@michaelmacrae In the case of Harry's statement his inconsistencies are obviously lies. He says clearly he was denied the legal route in 2012 (and names the people involved). He says in 2019 it was the first he learned of the hacking. Judges never say someone is lying anyway.

My question also of Harry is, because the hacking is mostly of his girlfriends' phones, does he have their permission to pursue the case? The messages must involve him, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the case. He can't sue on someone else's behalf unless he is involved. How do they feel about him invading their privacy? If it proceeds to trial would they be involved? I don't think Harry's 31 page dossier is in the public domain as he didn't even have court approval to submit it.

I do agree the press must be held accountable but think his case isn't strong enough here. It seems to me he is trying to get revenge on how he perceived Meghan was treated, and more distantly his mother. Those are not good motives for bringing legal cases which are all about provable facts. In the process he is throwing a lot of mud (no change there) at innocent people.

The judge actually said a factual inconsistency in the pleadings. Hugh Grant has faced the same issue.

The judge hasn't accused Harry of lying.

Perhaps he should've known earlier - who actually knows. But this bullshit about what judges like and don't like and Harry lying shows a lack of knowledge about what is being reported.

@kirinm I have very little understanding of overall law. I'm not pretending otherwise. I do know about our claim and that's what I commented on in response to negligence (pertaining to injury). Simple fact is, both are correct. I can however read reports on Harry's claim, and see how shaky it is on many fronts.

I agree entirely people should not get away with criminal or civil acts of phone hacking. They are clearly guilty of historic hacking and should be called out on it, but the law has to take precedence over harrys hurt feelings and by lying about his knowledge of the offence, he is bringing himself into disrepute too.

I don't think that's insane. I'm not a lawyer so this is my uninformed opinion, but if they are legally correct that the case should be thrown out, then that's would should happen. Otherwise why bother with the rules at all. It doesn't mean that I would rather the phone hackers win.

No one has said the judge doesn't like Harry that is absurd. If Harry clearly stated he knew in 2012 and clearly stated he didn't know until 2019, isn't that lying?

@WeWereInParis I appreciate it's the law and don't disagree that if the claim has been issued out of time, it will fail - and if the court decides he did know in 2012(?) or ought to have known then it will fail. It would be a shame though.

People here don't actually care about whether the claim was issued in time or the legal points being made. They care only about Harry losing or being able to attack him for anything that is written. That is what is nuts.

This was your post:

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.

You questioned someone's understanding of 'civil law' and then claimed the above was the limitation position in negligence. Despite being corrected you continued to insist it was 3 year years.

Unfortunately someone's behaviour is an indication or their character. Harry's racist language, his 'inconsistencies' in his book and in interviews, his arrogance in refusing the renounce titles he claims are from a racist, colonialist family and so on, rapidly loses sympathy from normal citizens struggling with the cost of living crisis. Meanwhile he and his wife complain about their victimhood from a Californian mansion.

@kirinm I was wrong on that limitation. I accepted that and didn't argue when it was pointed out. Didn't you notice that??

Nice deflection away from the weakness of Harry's case and his actual motivation though.

And it was a response to someone saying it was a criminal case!

No you didn't. When I told you negligence was 6 years - the second person to - you said this:

@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

People here don't actually care about whether the claim was issued in time or the legal points being made.

I care! I’ve not commented much though as what’s been reported in the press about the case is so unclear as to make it almost impossible to work out exactly what the actual arguments are. 😀

And, having been on both sides of limitation arguments in the past, I appreciate the good and bad points of the rules.

what’s been reported in the press about the case is so unclear as to make it almost impossible to work out exactly what the actual arguments are.

Many of us have formed that impression!

@kirinm As I said when you pointed this out, my 'negligence' was for injury and my information is correct for negligence causing injury. Neither was specified, so both bits of information are correct.

Unless you're telling me a personal injury claim isn't negligence? Funny, my solicitor calls it negligence. The chain of negligence calls personal injury negligence?

Seriously I wouldn't bother doubling down. You challenged two people who told you, you were wrong and given that Harry isn't pursuing an injury claim, to bring up a 3 year limitation period showed your ignorance which is why you were called out. To pretend NOW that I'm suggesting an injury claim isn't brought in negligence just makes you look stupid.

What the fuck is the chain of negligence?!

Do you mean chain of causation?

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.

If his statement is thrown out, however well the reason is explained to him, I predict we will hear that its a "secret deal" ordered by the Palace, if not by Camilla personally

You're now being ridiculous

@polkadotdalmation please do continue with your fascinating legal analysis of this case which is currently technical points of law you don't understand.

Well, he sure won't be happy. He's telling the American people their first amendment is bonkers, so he want to gag freedom of speech in America too.

He needs to accept the methods he and his wife use to promote their 'brand', having a PR team to put the same puff story in multiple outlets. Their instagram, Netflix and spotify deals which promote them and make money for them, is just another side to the multi media world of the internet. It's a two edged sword. He can't dictate and remove all criticism of him and his wife from social media and this crusade of his is not going well so far.

Phone hacking is criminal practice and should be prosecuted as such. Harry is going for the low hanging fruit, but overall it won't achieve much. The papers make as much money from his 'inconsistencies' as they pay out in compensation. The royal family have the right idea. Not saying it's right but it is pragmatic.