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

I don't think it's a joint action? Presumably as Harry has his own barrister, everyone has their own legal team so can carry on. If the judge believes Harry knew about the hacking in 2012 then it's ruled out for him. My guess is it will be. The law is pretty black and white. The withdrawal of a major witness for the prosecution is very damaging to the case anyway. Would love to hear what evidence the prosecution actually have though.

The withdrawal of a major witness for the prosecution is very damaging to the case anyway

That’s a different case - allegations against the Mail.

This case where the argument is about whether it’s out of time, involves allegations about the Sun.

If Harry's claim is ruled invalid because it was brought too late, does that end this action? Or does it still go ahead for other complainants but not Harry?

Everybody’s claim is separate and distinct, they have just been joined together for convenience as their allegations are substantially similar. So if one individual’s claim fails because, for example, they are out of time to bring it, that will have no impact on the other claims.

(Also, it’s a civil case, not a prosecution. If they are successful, the claimants are seeking monetary awards)

@HeddaGarbled Thanks. I don't really follow the cases, and it doesn't look like much is actually published yet about the strength of the case. Surely there has to be evidence, or is he going on what was revealed at the time of William and kate's settlement? I can't see how he is going to get around 2 conflicting statements, especially as one didn't have permission to be admitted. Maybe I should start reading newspapers!

Sean Bean isn't publicly funded.

What has public funding to do with Harry's case? He's not publicly funded. The RF chose to accept an out of court settlement, so didn't cost the taxpayers. If it had gone to court then yes, although it would depend on if they were awarded costs, which is usual if you win.

If William had gone to trial, he'd have done so using valuable public resources. The court system is already under a lot of pressure, with significant backlogs. Why would it have been a good thing for William to add to this when a settlement was available? This was a civil case so the only possible outcome was a financial payout, which William was awarded without having to clog up the courts. Out of court settlement is almost always the preferred option in these cases.

Your argument really makes no sense. And where do you draw the line at 'publicly funded'? Most people are 'publicly funded' to some extent. Do members of the royal family have no right to privacy, even in a privacy case?

I don’t agree with hacking for entertainment purposes or nefarious means. People have a right to privacy.

Harry needs to focus on facts and stop letting his emotions and need to be the victim get in the way. He is the victim in phone hacking; he doesn’t need to try to bring anyone else down with him. Doing so and being caught out lying just further dents his already very battered reputation.

I would hope, actually, expect that if Prince William sued, he'd use his own money and not public money.

I don't understand why people are saying it should go to a trial? What do people think is gained by a full hearing? We already know what the allegations against the press are. Why do people need to hear any hacked person say it in person? I just don't understand why people think that will make it tougher on the newspaper being sued. They're suing for money, it's not as if they can cause journalists to go to gaol or some other punishment. So how will a full trial benefit the hacked person, other hacked people, you, me, the country...? I don't get it.

I would hope, actually, expect that if Prince William sued, he'd use his own money and not public money.

But taking a case to trial by necessity involves public money. Who is going to pay the judges? And the judicial system has a limited capacity, so if William took the case to trial, it would mean other cases would be delayed. There is no good reason to go to court when an out of court settlement could be reached. People are just looking to find fault.

Not controversial at all but looking at this "Otherwise if powerful people have the power to muzzle the press, then there wouldn't be checks and balances against them".

What of it is the press itself that abuses power?

The Press uses it's power against government and the people.

That is what these lawsuits are claiming - the tabloid media run by TWO MEN are unchecked, undemocratic and can actually subvert the democratic system. Think about that - two men decide.

it is really important.

No matter who we like or who we don't like - this is really important. We should want them to win.

In a way it is a pity we know that DoS is part of this suit. If it was only Hugh Grant and Elton then maye we woukd pay more attention to the content and less to "who would you rather...'

I mean that in general - not you personally @MamoruHisaishi

But will some celebs winning financial compensation for illegal acts perpetrated 10 years ago, really make much difference to that?

As far as I can gather, this is a hearing dealing with the preliminary issue of limitation. I read that Hugh Grant has similar timing issues to Harry so it could be that one or both claims get struck out or it could be that one gets struck out and one is allowed to proceed.

The reporting isn't very clear but it also sounds like Harry recently applied for permission to amend his claim - this is what the 'statement' is - the statement supporting the application.

This is often the case with folks with an axe to grind. They want their day in court. They want to be heard. To stand uo and make their accusation. Even when it’s ill advised. And I think this is where harry is right now. He wants his day in court.

.. and in case he doesn’t get it, he’s put everything he wants to say into his extra widely piblicised witness statement ?

🙄 he won't have written the statement and it's purpose is to keep his case in. Ffs.

bylineinvestigates.com/2023/04/28/sun-hacking-hearing-final-day-judgment-reserved-and-a-further-hearing/

This makes sense of what's going on.

He should have supplied the information and signed it's accurate. He's okayed all that to be included. It's his statement no matter who typed it up.
And the judge is questioning some of it. Which I think is a bit mean. Because Harry has explained quite sincerely that his truth is not always the exact truth but it's his unreliable take on the truth which is just as good as the exact truth. That judge is so pedantic! Cut Harry some slack. 😄

That's a very unbiased take. 😂😂😂 Sly digs at the newspaper and his lawyer, whilst no mention of the judge being unhappy with Harry's side over two separate matters.
Byline investigates is hardly an even handed read.

He's going for estoppel! I did briefly wonder if that was the point of all the "secret arrangement" stuff but dismissed it as being too far-fetched 😜Let's see what David Sherborne can do with it. He's in the land of the equitable maxims now...

@PollyPeptide it's not being sly about the defendant barrister. It's pointing out that to win this argument, The Sun is having to say how the hacking should've been well known to Harry much earlier. And if The Sun lose the limitation argument, the defendant's barrister will deny any hacking happened at all.

A dig at the paper about losing money. A dig at the lawyer over his arguments.

And why didn't it mention the criticism by the judge towards Harry and his team?

It's just an article full of bias. And yet the bylineinvestigates claims it's against the erosion of truth... whilst not reporting the case truthfully. Figures. 🙄

@PollyPeptide It is the only article I've seen that explains what the procedural position is. It's also the only place that mentions the estoppel argument.

In terms of understanding what is actually going on, that article helps more than reading about 'statements' and 'inaccuracies'.

@kirinm Fair enough. I can see what you're saying. To my mind, though, I think it is important to a reader who was only going to read that article about the hearing, to know that the judge found there were inconsistencies in Harry's two statements. And that Sherbourne was criticised for late submission.
Byline would not report those incidents because they are very anti the sun and pro anyone who takes a case against them. Lol. It's a free press but when you say that you are against the erosion of truth, I'd think the average person would think that they would write the whole truth and not the truth with omissions that suited Byline's bias.
But I think maybe you have a legal background whereas I am just a layman so you might be used to small omissions, journalistic prejudices, etc, just being normal court reporting. So I will bow to your superior knowledge on that.

I don't have superior knowledge 😂 but am a solicitor specialising in litigation so I was curious about the legal arguments but also what was actually going on in terms of the litigation process because that isn't all that clear from the original guardian article. And I don't have any interest in reading The Mail, Sun etc for obvious reasons.

Things like last minute applications to amend aren't unusual. The court doesn't like them but they happen.