PH lost bid to challenge for right to pay Home Office for his security

[Mumsnut]

I've probably garbled that, but that's the gist of it.

Yikes - no wonder he feigned jet lag yesterday 😬

There is nothing on the face of the article that phone hacking took place,” Green says.

Harry says “you would have to ask the journalist themselves”."

But that's ridiculous. Harry is supposed to be providing evidence that the journalist used illegal means isn't he?

Is it rude to say his witness statement sounds a bit like the prose of his ghostwriter 😳 lines like this “how much more blood will stain their typing fingers” are so over the top

Yes that’s why I think he must have a solid piece of evidence to offer up - would he be doing that at a later stage? - otherwise we can all claim to have feelings and suspicions

The QC isn’t going ‘hard’ on Harry as he doesn’t need to as the case seems pretty weak at this point

tigger2022

that’s a good point - he’s using v emotive hyperbolic language maybe to detract from lack of anything tangible

If there's one thing a court hates it's 'speculation'!

Guardian:

Asked by the judge if he is suggesting third party invoices suggests unlawful activity, Harry says his understanding is the hacking was done by burner phones and they were destroyed, there was no call data, so he “has little to go on”.

There is an enormous amount of call data in relation to other targets, but none to you, Green replies.

There is an enormous amount of call data in relation to other targets, but none to you, Green replies.

sorry but does that mean they do have hard evidence others were hacked but not Harry?

I hope that the cross-examination covers this part of Harry's witness statement. What information is he even alleging was unlawfully gathered for this article?

43 “Plot to rob the DNA of Harry” The People, 15 December 2002, Dean Rousewell

71. This article, which was published on page 4 of the People and was written by Dean Rousewell, reported a plot to steal a sample of my DNA to test my parentage. I now understand that Dean Rousewell is well-known in this litigation as having used unlawful information gathering techniques himself, and also a habitual commissioner of private investigators, including JJ Services and Commercial & Legal Services.

72. Numerous newspapers had reported a rumour that my biological father was James Hewitt, a man my mother had a relationship with after I was born. At the time of this article and others similar to it, I wasn’t actually aware that my mother hadn’t met Major Hewitt until after I was born. This timeline is something I only learnt of in around 2014, although I now understand this was common knowledge amongst the Defendant’s journalists. At the time, when I was 18 years old and had lost my mother just six years earlier, stories such as this felt very damaging and very real to me. They were hurtful, mean and cruel. I was always left questioning the motives behind the stories. Were the newspapers keen to put doubt into the minds of the public so I might be ousted from the Royal Family?

73. Of particular concern to me in this article are the comments from the ‘highly-placed royal source’, which provided details of how the alleged plot would have been carried out and more importantly, that my DNA would be “sold abroad”. I’m not sure from where, or who, these comments were obtained from because they feel like a huge security risk, effectively putting a price on my DNA for anyone who could obtain it. I firmly do not believe that these are details anyone from within the Palace would have shared, given the measures put in place for the security of all members of the Royal Family. My solicitors have also shown me three Contribution Request Payments to Gavin Burrows of IIG Europe Ltd for £5,000 (this one with the reference ‘Prince Harry Special’, and which was approved by the Editor, Neil Wallis), £1,000 and £250 which, given their dates, seem to relate to this article. I believe these show that MGN were using unlawful means of gathering information about me for this article.

Even though it's about the balance of probabilities it is about probability not possibility. It still needs solid evidence

That’s how I read it. And that the assumption has been made that the must have been obtained by hacking solely because the author had been linked with hacking of other people - but doesn’t seem to be evidence of hacking Harry?

Sky have a better transcript of this bit:

Andrew Green KC says there don't seem to be any invoices from private investigators in relation to the "Diana so sad" article (you can read the article in our 11.10am post).

He asks if Prince Harry is aware of any invoice, to which the royal says "a lot of the evidence was destroyed" and that the timing of this is "incredibly suspicious".

Mr Green asks whether the prince suspects there was an invoice but it was destroyed - to which Harry says there may have been call data.

The barrister says there is an "enormous amount of call data" from MGN but "none in relation to you".

Harry says that hacking his phone is "an incredibly risky thing to do".

Prince Harry is asked if he accepts nothing in the 1996 article about his mother's visit to Eton shows phone hacking had taken place.

He says it was his understanding the journalist who wrote it was "linked to phone hacking".

Probed on this answer, the royal says he was informed of this "through legal paperwork that I've seen" - though he says he doesn't have it in front of him.

Andrew Green KC is questioning Harry on his "frequent references" throughout his witness statement to his legal team showing him invoices detailing payments to third party companies.

He questions the prince on whether he is "specifically treating the existence of an invoice as suspicious or indicative of something unlawful".

Harry says he was "highly suspicious".
"My understanding is that during that period hacking was all done through burner phones so there was no call data and most evidence has been destroyed - I had little to go on," he adds.

David Sherbourne wouldn't have taken this case unless there was some concrete evidence, surely? So there must be an 'aha' moment or witness being producing along the line somewhere!

Is there a good live feed or twitter thread somewhere? I’ve tried the BBC and Times but finding them too hard to follow along

So he "can't be sure" and "has little to go on"??

Here's hoping there's more rigour around some of the examples to come, because though I've no legal knowledge this is sounding like little more than speculation

I do actually feel sorry for Harry as he was more sinned against than sinning but none of this will actually change anything. Not sure if there was any action or inaction he could have pursued which would have changed things

They can advise but end of the day it makes their money.

"The mere fact that someone has interest in you doesn't mean they're using unlawful information techniques," Mr Green puts to the prince.

"It does when it's a group that have admitted to evidence of phone hacking already," Harry responds.

Sorry Harry, but I disagree and I’m pretty sure that’s not what the law states either.

He needs to produce actual evidence that HE was hacked. That some journalists who hacked others also wrote stories on him does not mean they hacked him - you can’t make that assumption unless you can show they hacked EVERYONE else they wrote about

@tigger2022 I have up with BBC.

Sky is very detailed and Guardian is pretty good

*gave

It must be hard never knowing where information came from, but that doesn’t mean it was illegally obtained

I think this is where it gets interesting. There's a old legal principle that essentially says that if a party has destroyed evidence, the court is entitled to make adverse inferences of fact about what that evidence contained.

Harry's barrister used this in the Wagatha Christie case (which he also acted in), where the publicist threw her phone into the North Sea - the court was entitled to assume that the incriminating evidence on that phone would have backed up Colleen's case.

Harry's case seems to be to stretch this principle so that such adverse inferences of fact can be made even where there is literally no other evidence. That's why there has been so much details about people such as Diana being potentially hacked - his argument seems to be "others were hacked, I can't show that I was hacked, but actually because the evidence doesn't exist I don't even need to show it". Which is a fundamentally odd basis for bringing a case.

I guess that in the Wagatha Christie trial, it was acknowledged that the phone did exist and was deliberately destroyed but in this case we don't know that the documents/evidence ever existed in the first place. Harry's barrister must realise that surely.

I'm sure it will come as a shock to Harry that his truth doesn't actually count in a court of law!
Only THE truth actually matters!

Harry in court: 'licking his lips and fidgeting with suit'
Prince Harry has been struggling to find the various articles and documents in the many bundles of paperwork he has in front of him, writes Victoria Ward in the High Court.

He appears nervous, repeatedly licking his lips, fidgeting with his suit and clearing his throat.

Mr Green is determined to focus on the specific detail, forensically analysing each article as he tries to establish exactly which part of each article Harry believes was obtained unlawfully and how that was done.

The Duke has been forced to admit that he has “little to go on” - instead making several broader statements about press intrusion and the impact it caused.

Pressed on whether he believed one specific line in a story came from phone hacking, he said: “I can’t be sure. You would have to ask the journalists themselves.”

Mr Green has pointed out that much of the information contained in the relevant articles was already in the public domain.

One concerned his plans to go rock climbing with Prince William.

“But Prince Harry, there was no need for the Daily Mirror journalists to use unlawful means because the information had already been published by the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday,” Mr Green said.

“That could be correct… “ came the reply.