The Prince and the Press: Continuing the Discussion on Prince Harry and the UK Media

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

A few weeks ago, there were three really great long running threads about Prince Harry and his battles against the UK "popular press."

I thought I would do one that looks at Harry's current court action.

For those interested in the kind of balanced view you won't get from the tabloids, all of whom face conflicts of interest, here is the Guardian take, which is the springboard for this discussion.

It is not possible to take any of the tabloids seriously when they report on Harry's legal cases. Former editor Alan Rusbridger, now of Prospect, has observed that all tabloids covering this story are acting unethically as they have not declared their conflicts of interest: Harry is suing all of their media houses.

The only papers with no conflict of interest are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Financial Times.

So I will be following this from the Guardian live page.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/04/diana-meghan-and-the-tabloid-press-harry-finally-gets-his-day-in-court

People in the court saying he wasn’t very well briefed and he didn’t give great evidence

Not sure if will mean he’ll lose or not overall

He has more days to go I think

There is quite a lot of the trial to go, so maybe the smoking gun is coming. Maybe, without being too rude, they put Harry close to the beginning to manage him - perhaps what comes next will be much more compelling & what they want the judge to hear last.

Harrys lawyer is questioning him this afternoon so I suspect that'll be interesting....
People in the court saying he wasn’t very well briefed and he didn’t give great evidence what people? media from the groups he's suing?

It seems bizarre to me that such an experienced KC as David Sherborne would put him in this position - alleging hacking when he didn't have a phone, or when the story was already in the public domain, and claiming distress from stories that he can't remember actually reading. Legal beagles on this thread, is that usual? What is their strategy, do you think?

On the radio people in the public gallery, a few saying the same

Plus the Times reporter said similar. He’s not part of those being sued

It sounds like it wasn’t a great first day for Harry. But that’s not to say whatever is required to win isn’t or won’t be in the trial

This is from Harrys statement and relevant to the claims of 'public interest'.

1. Of course, I accept my public role within the Royal Family and know that every time I put a suit and tie on in order to carry out an official engagement, I’m going to get photographed because most of the press are always there. Even if I get ‘papped’ on the way there or on the way back, then that’s absolutely fine too because it’s expected. But, if the next day, I want to go out and take my dog for a walk, I would expect some level of privacy, which unfortunately does not and never has existed for me. Despite the common misconception, I was no more than 5% funded by the taxpayer while I was a working Royal in the UK, yet it felt as though the tabloid press thought that they owned me absolutely, and deserved to know everything there is to know about me, my life, my movements and the lives of those people who came into my orbit.
2. There also seems to be a real blurring of the lines in terms of what is in the public interest and what is of interest to the public. The tabloids concentrated on salacious stories about my relationships and so on to satisfy the latter while appearing to completely ignore the former, as a means of justifying their intrusion. I simply don’t understand (and never have) how the inner,private details of my relationships for example, could have anything to do with the well-being of society or the running of the country and therefore be in the public interest or, indeed, how the use of voicemail interception and other unlawful information gathering techniques to uncover such private information could be either. I obviously understand why my relationships might be of interest to the millions of tabloid readers but that is something entirely different. What I complain of here is illegal or unlawful, and that is something which I feel incredibly strongly about, not just in a personal capacity but as part of the role I have always tried to take as my duty to stand up to things which are wrong and the public or people without the same resources should not have to accept or undergo.

Plus the Times reporter said similar. He’s not part of those being sued Actually, the Times is owned by Murdoch/ news Uk, who he is suing , so no, not an unbiased reporter at all

I think he is conflating two issues isn't he - illegally obtaining information and privacy vs public interest. As far as I can see, whether or not a story is in the public interest is neither here nor there for the purposes of these proceedings, isn't it just about the legality of how stories were sourced?

I'm not sure 'public interest' is relevant in this case? I thought his argument was that information had been obtained by illegal means?

Cross posted!

Maybe, although hearing him I find it doubtful.

If multiple people from different sources are saying the same it really might be the case Harry wasn’t well briefed and didn’t stand up with great evidence under scrutiny.

If it’s got a while to go he might have enough to convince the judge, we’ll see.

I am confused because nobody seems to be telling him to shut up about public interest, so maybe it is relevant 🤷‍♀️

There's a very good documentary out about Murdoch and the media and the influence this has had on people's lives, high grant is on it. It also looks at what happened with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron

• Hugh Grant not High grant, I have no idea if he is high!

How is making “interest” illegal going to work? Hacking or trespass, yes, but you can’t legislate against gossip!

I think he's conflating a lot of things. I don't think the details matter to him, but they certainly will to the judge. I get that it would be awful to have intrusive stories about your love life appear in the press, but while that may be unethical, it's not necessarily illegal.

Maybe that’s what people mean when they say not well briefed and lacking evidence under scrutiny

Apparntly he’s angry as hell at the media, a lifetime of hurt and it’s all part of it

The other thing I am confused about is the accusation that the papers used private investigators, which he is very upset ("physically sick") about, but presumably that in itself is not illegal, he would still have to show that the PIs acted illegally?

Just my opinion but I think it’s supposed to be a scattergun effect, to make it harder to defend because MGN have to defend every point, just to try and nail them on SOMETHING (I think Harry would take a win on anything as a victory) but it’s just not being executed that well?

Part of the MGN defence is 'public interest'... I pulled that part out because posters here are saying certain things are in the public interest, him taking drugs for example.... its a point raised by many p[eople, including the former NOTW editor I posted a clip of earlier, he was on the sofa with Suzanne Reid today saying the same and using it as a defence to their methods and that's why its covered in the witness statement and Harry himself points out regardless of the public interest argument-
What I complain of here is illegal or unlawful.

and he isn't asking them to.

who are the multiple people form different sources?all journalists? Harry is suing most of them you know. I watched an actual media lawyer saying he is doing well today so it seems to depend on who you listen to and what you want to believe really

But 'public interest' isn't legally defined, is it?

So if a story has been obtained by unlawful means, then it doesn't matter if it was in the 'public interest' or not. It's unlawful. Equally, if a story is 'merely' intrusive, but was not obtained by unlawful means, then there is nothing illegal about it.

"When did you first go to solicitors to seek advice about a possible claim about MGN? Green asks

I didn’t go to them, I bumped into Mr Sherborne (his barrister) in France, Harry says

When?

It’s in my book, I believe 2018-ish, Harry replies.

You haven’t identified any particular message that you recall being left on a voicemail that made it’s way into a story, Green says.

I can’t remember specific voicemails, Harry replies."

That makes it sound as if he ran into his lawyer by chance, and has been talked into the case?

if you follow some of the better court reporting you'll see the lawyer for Mgn actually ask him about public interest, so he's asmwerign the questions asked of him- eg And Mirror lawyer Andrew Green seems to be trying to tease him out to say more – asking him when it would be in the public interest to cover a story about his health.