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

It seems his case boils down to 'I think I've been hacked, I can't prove it, but my feelings have definitely been hurt and anyway, I'm a royal prince, so I want it to be illegal.'

It’s all very ‘suspicious’

A silly question - but wouldn’t they have submitted something credible so that it went to trial in the first place ?

I’m not following closely but from here and feedback from
courtside on radio it’s not going well for Harry

He doesn’t have evidence to back up case

Still a wait and see but it’s a whole life of anger up there

Still a wait and see but it’s a whole life of anger up there

Well, I hope he's finding it cathartic but I can't believe he is.

It’s a civil case isn’t it? Does that mean anything goes if people want to pay

No idea

I don't understand this case or how it's structured but BBC guy didn't seem to think it was that bad for Harry.

If anything, Prince Harry seemed to be getting more confident in his replies, sparring with his questioner.
There was always going to be a lot of scrutiny over how he responded – and he didn’t crumble or get irritated. It will be up to the judge to consider whether he’s been convincing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65767193

I thought the section on PH's Afghanistan withdrawal was interesting. Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton got a phone-hacking settlement, didn't he? So it does appear possible that Harry's feelings about being forced to leave were learned from JLP's phone? This is the nearest I've seen to PH making his case (only takes one item, apparently).

I think it went 'well' in that he didn't get irritable or over react, as some predicted.

Whether it went 'well' in terms of proving his claims of hacking - who knows? Presumably the judge has to give reasons for their decision when they give their judgement? Would that include their view on the credibility of the evidence?

It's hard to believe that if the phones of everyone around him were hacked then his wasn't, but the way he's answering falls short of proving that, as far as I can see.

That doesn’t really say anything though.

The case will be judged how the judge sees the evidence presented, not how snappy Harrys responses were, or whether he got irritated.

There is that.

Also the question about whether he knew two friends of CD were selling stories is very suggestive they they have evidence that they were

But were the phones of everyone around him hacked by this group?

I thought this is MGN, and William was hacked by NGN?

In his witness statement, Harry says this type of story is "not flattering" for him.

But getting ridden round the back of a pub and getting skelped on the arse is?

That doesn’t really say anything though.

The case will be judged how the judge sees the evidence presented, not how snappy Harrys responses were, or whether he got irritated.

True - but I'm not in the court and not seeing everything and have impression he's not really proved his case or come across that well.

So someone who is there saying it went okay is interesting not least as my media base and very limited understanding is it's a low bar and he just has to get reasonable doubt on one point.

I would imagine a current partner or spouse might find it infinitely more unpleasant.

How hard would that be to hear?

Harry’s whole consistently repeated refrain around there being no evidence because the Mirror used “burner phones” and “destroyed evidence”. Again, he has clearly not read the Leveson report.

The striking thing about the phone hacking was that the phone hackers used absolutely no precautions at all because they were completely oblivious to the fact that the mobile phone companies could provide data about how often voicemail systems were accessed via the remote dial-in service (the mobile phone companies didn’t realise this at first, either!). So the call data that the police gathered after Prince William’s complaint to Scotland Yard was able to show how many times the hackers had dialed the personal mobile numbers of the people they were trying to hack, and from where. So for example, they were able to show one of the hackers had dialled William’s private secretary’s mobile from his own mobile, from his home landline, and even from the NOTW’s offices.

Prior to this becoming public knowledge as part of the criminal cases, no-one had realised that this data existed or could be accessed. So prior to say, being charitable here, 2007-2008, there was absolutely no need for burner phones or any other kind of subterfuge because they it literally never occurred to the hackers that they could be traced.

Also, the phone data comes from the mobile network providers, not the hackers. There is no way that the Mirror could arrange for BT/Orange’s etc data to be deleted.

Not reasonable doubt - balance of probabilities - the lower bar for civil case part.

I don't think it has help his overall image - but then I don't think it was ever going to.

Serenster

super insightful! Thank you!

I think this is the best example he's used of information that was not general knowledge, and of events that largely happened by phone and which may have involved hackable voicemails.

But, he'd need CD to back him up on that (no third parties made aware by her, esp if - as KC suggested - two of her friends were known to sell stories)

Separately, it's a bit staggering that Harry doesn't seem to realise that he actually needs to provide decent evidence about his claim

Coming up after lunch

We will get more questions for Prince Harry from his lawyer, David Sherborne KC - but this should only last 15 minutes or so.

This afternoon we'll start hearing from Mirror Group witnesses, including Jane Kerr - former assistant news editor and royal editor of the Daily Mirror.

Only just joining in on this thread, but the hacking can be very much true, so I fully imagine his messages were being listened to.

I know someone who accepted a payout from the Mirror Group because of the phone hacking. Again, he could never prove for definite but there was overwhelming evidence.

In his case, he worked very closely with a singer who was known for being rather unstable and troubled.

Separately, his child was struggling with addiction issues and he had got them a place at The Priory.

The Priory called him one day and he didn't answer the call. The Priory went on record stating that they left a voicemail, but wouldn't have used the name of the patient, more of a "Hello Mr X, this is Doctor Y calling from The Priory. Could you please give me a call back?"

Within a couple of days there was a report in the paper that "sources" had declared the singer to be receiving treatment in The Priory.

It won't have been difficult for people to get hold of PH's mobile phone number and how many of us knew we had a PIN, or should change a PIN for our voicemails?

Of course, if CD could give evidence too backing up PH's comments, this would be all the more compelling.

Do we think Harry reached out to Chelsy, asking her to be a witness?

But, he'd need CD to back him up on that (no third parties made aware by her, esp if - as KC suggested - two of her friends were known to sell stories)

Surely with the whole Chelsy phone call thing it's more likely that she told her friends, he told his friends, gossip spread and someone leaked / sold the story? Rather than someone leaving him a voicemail about it?

Prince Harry has said it is "destructive" that a comment from MGN's lawyer was used in a news headline "against" him this morning

I’m actually feeling a bit sorry for him.
He’s clearly been trowling though the papers/media reports.

He can’t have thought that the proceedings wouldn’t be reported on?