The trials and tribulations of Harry - thread 2

[TrashyPanda]

Continuation of

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4812092-ph-lost-bid-to-challenge-for-right-to-pay-home-office-for-his-security?page=10&reply=126688485

@mixedrecycling

Lots of criticism. I only wish the 'little people' who have far stronger cases against them had the money to pursue a case. Maybe by someone wealthy with a common interest in holding the tabloids to account funding it, and shining a spotlight on their cases.

You are very naive I'm afraid. The 'little people' as you put it, do bring cases and have done. There have been literally hundreds of these cases mostly arising out of News of The World but some against Mirror Group.

The claimant lawyers usually act no win/no fee - but get an uplift on their fees if they win so it's a big money spinner for the lawyers.

What happens is that if the case is strong or the Claimant is likely to win, the newspapers settle the case and pay damages. The newspaper has no interest in spending money on a trial and lawyers in cases they are likely to lose. Unless the case involves a celebrity, the fact of a settlement isn't interesting so that's why you don't really hear about it.

The big exception was in one group of cases where the Defendant newspaper admitted intrusion but were arguing about how much the damages were (whether there should be a global award per Claimant or a per article award). This was a case called Gulati and went to the Court of Appeal

https://panopticonblog.com/2015/12/17/phone-hacking-level-damages/

Do you support this case regardless of the merits? Just because it's 'standing up' to the press? It does sound like it

I support him bringing this case IYSWIM. But I would support anyone bringing it.

This.

H seems quite a bit of a hypocrite though.

Regardless of the legal merits?

Do you think it's good for wealthy people to use scarce public resources simply to 'take a stand'?

I think it’s too soon to say whether it has legal merit or not. It’s only the first day, lots of evidence to come and let’s remember he’s one of about 100 complainants so he’s hardly out on a limb. It’s a sort of test case for the others isn’t it?

So then the question becomes whether the other routes were, in fact, lawful ones, or if they fell into the "unlawful information gathering" realm…At what point does a journalist asking questions become a journalist unlawfully blagging? I think that's the tricky issue that the judge is ultimately going to have to deal with here. What boundaries apply to journalists in respect of non-phone hacking information gathering?

I think that’s a really good point. Harry hates the press, and so to him all stories about him (that he doesn’t want out there) must have come about because evil papers did evil things. But some stories just come put because he’s famous and widely covered and people will recognise him. And that is a jounalists’ stock in trade - people passing them nuggets of information that the journalist can use to write a story. In his shoes, I have sympathy for his view that that doesn’t make it right. But tipoffs like this are not illegal, and often lead to some really important stories being broken by investigative journalists. A free press has an important purpose as well as being an irritant.

Harry may not know, but his Dad got caught out this way when he was younger - when still a schoolboy he went into a pub and ordered a cherry brandy, as he’d occasionally drunk one when at home. But of course he was recognised and suddenly “Heir to the throne engages in underage drinking” was an international news story. Tough for Prince Charles, but valid story, validly sourced, and appropriately printed. It’s even easier these days because everyone has a camera on them all the time.

So anyway, where I come down on this, is that I think the press should be punished if they do illegal acts in gathering information, and should be properly, independently regulated, but still able to investigate and report on matters of public interest as far as legally allowed (and sorry Harry, but someone who was at the time third in line to the throne engaging in illegal activities will always be in the public interest, and not just of interest to the public).

Some of his arguments are almost comical in their stupidity:

"His witness statement continues that there is evidence four calls were made by MGN journalists to Paddy Haverson the day after the article was published, which he calls "suspicious", as Mr Haverson was across his security arrangements.

Mr Green invites the prince to explain how phone calls made after the article appeared in print could point to phone hacking for the purpose of the story.
Harry accepts that they wouldn't have been in relation to the article."

To be fair, it’s the second day, he just didn’t bother to front up yesterday.

I don't think there is 'lots of evidence' to come out from Harry. He's had a full day and you seem to be one of the few here who thinks he's come anywhere close to proving his case.

But in general wouldn't you agree that the law courts exist to apply justice, not to 'take a stand'? And if justice can be served through settling out of court and not taxing the legal system, surely that's a good thing?

@IcedPurple he is going to be questioned by his own counsel once cross examination is finished. If there is 'good' evidence that might placate you, you're not going to hear it whilst he's being cross examined.

I guess that's just as well, since no evidence, 'good' or otherwise, has been produced today.

I almost wish someone else was bringing the case so that we could all get behind it

Personally I've always wished that, though fortunately there are plenty of other claimants too

FWIW I'd get behind Harry too if there was any chance of him offering a credible account, and even hoped that, this time, he might manage it. Unfortunately - and fairly predictably - it just doesn't appear to be happening

I know you know this, kirinm, but for others who may not, that questioning by his own counsel can only be to clarify points that came up during cross-examination. Harry can’t introduce any new evidence at that stage.

I agree, settlements are perfectly valid and there’s nothing wrong with them. I don’t judge any of the others for accepting them, I can see why you would. Who wants to subject themselves to a trial?!

However, I do think he and the others have a case to argue and it’s a reasonable one when you look at everything together, so it is worthy of the courts’ time.

I think the view that people have already taken that his phone was never hacked is more to do with people’s dislike of him, rather than the actual case.

Sky News seem to think the flight being disclosed could be the nearest they have to a “smoking gun” in this case. But other than this I don’t think he’s conveyed his evidence very well. It will be interesting to see how this goes.

I think the view that people have already taken that his phone was never hacked is more to do with people’s dislike of him, rather than the actual case.

But nobody on this thread has said his phone was never hacked, have they? Most people have said that very likely it was. But whether it happened on these specific occasions, and he can prove this to the satisfaction of the judge, is another matter entirely.

... questioning by his own counsel can only be to clarify points that came up during cross-examination. Harry can’t introduce any new evidence at that stage

Thanks yet again, Serenster; I certainly didn't know this, so that's something else I've learned

Supposing he tried though, as in "I forgot to mention yesterday" ... would that be shut down, or could it get under the wire as being relevant to something already presented?

Sky News have also got an actor to reenact today’s evidence 🤣

Is it really a 'smoking gun'?

How much would it take to persuade an airport clerk in Johannesburg to part with the information?

He looks a bit like the actor who plays David in Corrie 😂😂😂

I think the view that people have already taken that his phone was never hacked is more to do with people’s dislike of him, rather than the actual case.

Andrew Green did point out this morning though, that while MGN have lots of phone data for other people, they don’t for Harry, though (I expect we’ll hear more about that). I think his claim is still unproven.

Is there anyone who doesn’t think there were some really shady and unethical going on?

I certainly think there was definite abuse and hacking and that needs to be recognised

but the problem is that thus far Harry has been able to provide any cogent evidence. I hope otherlitigants will be more coherent and have better memories.

I think it's clear he does have a low IQ. He's becoming a laughingstock.

I’m going to differ a wee bit flowers

I think it is more like he is allowing the perceived injustice of it all to cloud his judgement and perhaps let emotion get in the way of matters.

I understand that. I’ve been in a different position where I’ve done the same.

I think he was a bit of a laughing stock by recalling certain events in that book in questionable terms.

If he has owt about him he would have predicted that.

I’d be a wee bit sad for him if he was considered a laughing stock when he is trying to articulate his (understandable) hurt and frustration today.

If he has been hacked, I would have cheered him on if he’d been able to show it.

Believing something to be true does not make it so. Having suspicions doesn’t make it true.

I think what is more sad that his credibility will be questioned harder. We all have varying opinions regarding varying recollections in the book. And perhaps the credibility thereof.

His book. His story. His truth. Recollections may vary.

Today should be more about the truth and evidence to back it up.

On a lighter note. I wonder where he's staying and if he will be making a near catastrophic car chase across London to get to his secret bolt hole?

Am I getting this right? Harry is not necessarily arguing that in all cases his personal phone was hacked, but that information about him was obtained by illegal means such as the hacking of his and his associates’ phones, so that’s why he’s raising examples where other people had their phones hacked. Am I understanding right?