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

yes.

Was the 'actual media lawyer' on Sky News by any chance?

Can you direct us to this 'better court reporting'?

I'm following various sources, including the live blog on BBC.

From the Guardian feed:

Green asks if Harry discussed with Sherborne a claim against News Group or claim against News Group or MGN?
Harry replies that he was looking for a way of dealing with the “abuse, intrusion, hate” towards him and his wife, to find another course of action rather than rely on the institution’s lawyer.
Harry has suggested that he believes evidence of hacking at Mirror was “destroyed”.
Where do you get this idea of destruction of evidence from the Mirror Group? Green asks.
My legal team, Harry says.

Sounds like he wanted the media to pay for Meghan, so has gone after all of them for any/everything, hoping something sticks

Oh that's genius. Bernard was a splendid character.

A good way to put it

There was a mention of flights not being known other than illegal means. No idea if it stood up as evidence

Prince Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, has started to re-examine his client.
Sherborne says Harry has been asked about the existence of call data, to which Harry says “burner phones” were used so call data was deleted.
Do you mean therefore no one actually did hack your phone? Sherborne asks.
“I believe they would have gone to extreme lengths to cover their tracks,” Harry replies.

Am I being thick? Why would his own lawyer ask him ‘do you mean no one actually hacked you?’

‘Where do you get this idea of destruction of evidence from the Mirror Group? Green asks.
My legal team, Harry says.’

😬 is absence of evidence, evidence of evidence? 🙃

It’s reading like a lost extract from Alice in wonderland

no it isn't, that's your imagination

Am I being thick? Why would his own lawyer ask him ‘do you mean no one actually hacked you?’

• the mgn lawyer was asking him about this and about threr being a lack of call data meaning he wasn't;t hacked and would harry accept he wasn't if he lost blah blah so I assume that's why he picked that up straight away

Am I being thick? Why would his own lawyer ask him ‘do you mean no one actually hacked you?’

Presumably so his answer gets recorded, and clarifies any possible confusion created by his answers to the other lawyer.

Part of the MGN defence is 'public interest'...

Really? Are they saying it's ok to obtain information illegally if the story is in the public interest? The defence barrister seems to be arguing that the information was already public / there were so many ways it could have been obtained that it's not likely to have been illegal.

Iwantcakeeveryday · Today 13:04
no it isn't, that's your imagination

Actually it was my opinion on how it reads. Talking of made up things though, i think the lawyer is insinuating that the invisible evidence is a product of Harry’s imagination. Thanks for inadvertently highlighting that.

So to clarify the answer is ‘they would have gone to great lengths’ rather than ‘I don’t know’ or whatever he said before.

Got it.

Am I being thick? Why would his own lawyer ask him ‘do you mean no one actually hacked you?’

I think he was supposed to clarify that no, he doesn't think that nobody hacked him.

(This doesn't explain why there was call data for other people but not for him though.)

'Are you saying your phone was being hacked on a daily basis? Green asks.

It could have been, I don’t know, Harry says.' from the Guardian live feed.

So presumably Harry's lawyer wants to make clear that he is saying his phone was hacked.

Those pp who think Harry has a case what do you think the evidence to support it is?

‘It could have been, I don’t know’ isn’t anywhere near standing up surely

I think the public interest discussion is because of the larger debate we've touched on here. If you say the media can't investigate then corporations/politicians/governments can't be held to account. imo PH was trying to make the point that he is criticising his treatment because he doesn't think it was in the public interest. In a roundabout way, it's tiptoeing the line between 'If it's not in public interest then we're entitled to privacy but that's not to say everyone else or every other entity is entitled to the same levels of privacy especially if there is a public interest defence.' Where that falls down is that it actually does matter if a member of the RF or a politician has dodgy friends, is caught in compromising positions, is loaned money or given gifts in kind by Russian oligarchs, etc. It leaves them open to blackmail. (I am not accusing PH of any of those things - just making the wider point).
But it's also irrelevant because unauthorised phone tapping/hacking is illegal regardless of public interest.

@AlexandriasWindmill - I think the relevance to the case is if he can prove it happened and wasn’t in the public interest the damages awarded will be higher?

It's a case that will be decided on the balance of probabilities. All PH's team have to do is show a pattern of information being published that wasn't available from other means.
iirc PH can't make definitive statements because he can't 'prove' it happened every day or possibly even at all. But the balance of probabilities can still tip in his favour. Hence why he's pointed out bylines by journalists who have already been named in earlier phone hacking cases.

As an aside, presumably there is a mechanism for the police or other government security agencies to phone tap under serious enough circumstances? Who authorises that?

mixedrecycling

didnt Snowden leak that actually ‘they’ (the secret services) can access anyone’s private comms at any time, and the protocols are v murky - as in they aren’t really answerable to an independent governing body, hence the scandal at the time

It wouldn't surprise me!

AlexandriasWindmill

do you think he’ll win?