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.

@Dolma Indeed. I think personally there was a very high probability harry and his circle were hacked but it's not the point when it comes to a trial.

I'm not sure but the hacking settled out of court with William and kate must have had substantial evidence at the time Harry's must have been hacked as well so where is this evidence?

@oaktreeswing Oh dear. Not looking good but harry will have been told this by his legal team so it's just grandstanding. Not blaming him but there were better ways than this.

His anger at being a constant source of media interest throughout his life is understandable, and something that all the royals experience.

But his belief that this is the way to resolve his emotions or even get 'justice' for this unfair experience is delusional.

He's just making himself more of a story.

He's just constantly fighting everyone.

The articles he's referencing largely refer to crappy things he did like take drugs, dress as a nazi go to lap dancing clubs.

All a bit embarrassing, but all forgotten and forgiven by the British public by the time he married when everyone just wanted the best for him, and past behaviour viewed as just foolish young high jinx.
Why drag it all up again now?

Even if he wins this case, how would his life be better for it?

He's trashed his own reputation, lost all sympathy people had for him, sold his own life for money and hurt lots of people.
For what end Harry?
To say: I was right?

He is right. That his life has been horribly scrutinized by the media. But his idea this will resolve that unfairness is foolish.

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

In other words "I think they must have done it, so they did"?

I realise this'll be decided on the balance of probabilities, but surely, to my layperson's mind, he's got to be able to produce more than this - or indeed any proof at all??

I get the impression that Harry is running ahead of himself to prove that press intrusion and mental distress caused means that damage was caused and damages are payable, BEFORE adequately demonstrating that illegality took place.

From Sky:

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, asks the royal if it's his case that phone hacking was how the information of his whereabouts was obtained.
"You'd have to ask the journalist," Harry responds.
"So you're not alleging that?" Mr Green asks - the duke says he is.
"On the basis of what?"
"I don't believe as a witness it's my job to construct the article or instruct which parts were unlawfully obtained or weren't, the journalist should be doing that," Harry says.

It kind of is your job, as you’re bring the case Harry!?

Surely there must be evidence?

Wouldn't his lawyers call the witnesses who have the evidence of hacking first?
Then call Harry to demonstrate the emotional impact of the illegal acts?

Where is the evidence? Who will they call to show evidence of hacking?

@StrawberryWasp Yes Harry has an understandable thin skin. He had two options. Carry on as he is or grow a thicker one.

Now he's blaming the tabloid press for his behaviour. Sympathy diminishing. You are not a victim harry

i’m just open-mouthed. Harry has worked to build up a cash nest egg/safety net, via Spare and the Netflix documentary, and paid for it with a lot of family good will along the way.

I can see much of that nest egg vanishing into the costs abyss.

About a trip to a pub in 2000 for his 16th birthday…

”In his witness statement, Harry says he doesn't know "how anyone would have known I was at this particular pub, at this particular time, in order to be there taking photographs of me".

What, there was NOONE else in the pub? No staff behind the bar?

I'm surprised Meghan is allowing this. I think it shows he is his own man even if it's one with very poor judgement

If Harry loses does he have to pay all the costs of the defendant?

@Mumsnut , just a pretty please 🙏 reminder to start a second thread if this fills up .

Ill gotten gains being squandered by two clueless people. Who is surprised?

I will if I’m on the spot, Jeff. But I’ve no objection to anyone else starting one either.

@Mumsnut 👍 thanks

"I don't believe as a witness it's my job to construct the article or instruct which parts were unlawfully obtained or weren't, the journalist should be doing that," Harry says

It kind of is your job, as you’re bring the case Harry!?

It's probably just as well that Green hasn't gone in too hard (at least not yet) with references to Harry's own comments about his memory - because I'm starting to worry about him losing it completely

As said, hopefully there'll be actual proof offered on other examples to come, though knowing the fragility of his client, wouldn't Sherborne have asked for the stronger ones to be addressed first?

I can see much of that nest egg vanishing into the costs abyss

I hate to ask, but whether he wins or not could they actually force him to pay?

On page 6 of his witness statement he says that his mobile phone was his main way of staying in touch with his family, and especially his mother who he was very close to.

Except it’s already been established and confirmed that he didn’t have a mobile until 1998, after his mother’s death.

It’s silly mistakes like this, so totally unavoidable, that just makes it so easy for the defence to establish doubt on the rest of his evidence.

Yes please. It's nice to have a reasonable discussion without deflections in all directions. Just leave the echo chambers to it and someone start a new one.

Oh flip.

that’s a really bad error.

sadly, he has history for this - cf his claim to be alone at school when the Queen Mum died.

More from sky, more ‘i don’t know’

We're hearing about an element of the article on Harry's thumb injury which states he was "frustrated" with being told not to play football for a few weeks.

The prince alleges the information - attributed to a spokesperson in the story - was obtained unlawfully.

MGN lawyer Andrew Green KC asks Harry if he thinks the details for the story came from phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.

"Both," the royal says.

"You allege that [journalist] Jane Kerr hacked your phone to get the information?" asks Mr Green.

"Either from herself or she got someone else to do the dirty work for her," Harry responds.

Pressed on which phone would have been intercepted, the prince says he "can't be sure".

"That's not an answer," Mr Green says and repeats the question.

"The doctors? I'm not sure," Harry says.

"You think Jane Kerr or somebody on her behalf hacked a doctor's phone?" questions the publisher's lawyer. The Duke replies again that he is not sure.

"Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation?"

He disagrees and says he is not the one who wrote the article - adding that the journalist would be able to "shed some light" on the subject.

I think he’s getting confused by phone ‘tapping’ and phone ‘hacking’. Which are different things.

It’s quite possible landline phones back in the 90s were ‘tapped’ but not possible for them to have been ‘hacked’.

This trial is about ‘hacking’.

He's coming across as a complete fool ☹️