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

I wonder how much due diligence the journalist should have done - she has said she didn't ask how phone numbers, for example, were found by PIs, and that she had no knowledge of anything illegal being done.

At what point (legally, not ethically) should she have asked questions about how info was obtained?

I can’t help feeling they have to have some compelling evidence at some point.

Do you have to pay extra for voicemail nowadays?

No idea. My bundle only refers to unlimited mins and texts and a limited amount of data. No mention of voicemail charges. (Probably in the small print somewhere.)

I'm not sure about that - 'balance of probabilities' is the standard of proof. So if the judge thinks it is 51% probable that he was hacked that is enough for Harry to win. So it depends how you define compelling!

Yes it's a bit like leaving your front door open then complaining when you are burgled. Surely these high profile people should have had the most basic of common sense plans in place. Obviously both hacking (and burglary) are wrong but just take sensible precautions.

I'm always extra careful when sending sensitive info via text in case I press the wrong button. If I were a celeb I'd do it all via calls (not messages), face to face or not at all.

His pity party case seems all so very flimsy. Like the court version of 'Spare'. If MGN get done for his list of musings and moans I'll be flabbergasted.

Yes - he can't win on "lots of people in the news were hacked around that time. I am a high profile person who was in the news, therefore I must have been hacked"

He needs to show that he was hacked (or some other illegal intrusion used against him) and I'm not sure he's done that yet.

Harry keeps answering questions like “who gave you the idea to pursue legal action?” “who told you you had a case?” “who showed you evidence for this?” “who convinced you this was hacking?” with my legal team, my legal team, my legal team… so either his legal team are going to pull some amazing evidence out of the bag over the next 6 weeks or they absolutely saw him coming

Oh come on now... One of his "suspicious" encounters was him entering a club and then upon his exit there were photographers waiting. He's implying the only way they could have possibly known is through hacking. Couldn't possibly be because there were other human beings in the same place that might have told anyone that Harry was there....

And the whole case has come about because he bumped into his barrister in France...!

Was he hacked maybe… have any of the stories his shown seem like they were gained from hacking. No.

does he seem like a bumbling idiot yet. He doesn’t seem to have anything but suspicion and everything is he legal team says.

'He needs to show that he was hacked (or some other illegal intrusion used against him) and I'm not sure he's done that yet.'

Yes i bet Colleen Rooney would've done a better job of finding something actually incriminating. What on earth are his legal team thinking, are they stupid or is it all about the ££££.

His whole case seems to be 'yeah but no but'.

He should of got Coleen on his team

There’s no intelligence, or logic, or humility, or scope for self-doubt, or reflection beyond the depths of his own misery

Searing but probably accurate

I could feel sorry for his so obviously damaged state of mind, were it not for the damage he's so wilfully inflicted upon others, often for no apparent motive other than spite

Isn’t all this circumstantial which, and I may be wrong, doesn’t hold up in court? If

So why did his legal team go to all the trouble of finding those articles if they're not relevant?

If he doesn't have to prove hacking on those specific occasions, what does he have to prove? I know it's only a 'balance of probabilities' level of evidence, and that he doesn't have to show that he was hacked on every occasion. But surely saying 'lots of other people were hacked at that time so I must have been too' isn't going to convince the judge?

Is it me or is he looking more and more like Rory McGrath?

I feel the same.

I feel for him in that he is absolutely entrenched in bitterness with regards to the press.

I don’t blame him for that but to not be able to see that in many instances he most likely wasn’t hacked. Unscrupulous folk will make a buck if they can. And they do.

Will he or CD have been hacked? Most likely but the examples he has given do seem to be spurious.

As for the conduct in Court? He seems to think his privilege affords him the right to act as he pleases in there. It just appears arrogant.

I hope this brings him some sort of closure and he can go home to find happiness with his family.

I suspect it won’t.

Esma

Not just you 😁

I just don’t think this will be the desired result if Harry wins on evidence “they did it to others”. This protects the rich including most of the Tory government, if the only way to prove something is not done illegally is to provide the source then that’s the end to whistleblowers and anonymous tip offs. There will be two levels of journalism those who can afford legal action and those who can’t.

I hope this brings him some sort of closure and he can go home to find happiness with his family

I'd say the same, ArcaneWireless, except that this is by no means the last case he's got lined up

Nothing wrong with that in principle since he's every bit as entitled to seek redress of perceived grievances as anyone else, but given his responses and overall attitude it's hard to see how closure could be achieved even if he wins

I can’t understand that comment either. He seems very unprepared for someone with a top legal team. Also, yet again, I see him as someone suffering from poor mental health.

@MayQueeen
I may be wrong but I think he said he broke up with Chelsy ?

This is wrong. He says in terms it was her decision to end the relationship in his witness statement at paragraph 34.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23835120-bl-2019-001787-hrh-the-duke-of-sussex-v-mgn-witness-statement-of-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex

@TrashyPanda
I’ve been an expert witness in Scotland (civil court) and in judgement the quality of evidence given was specifically referred to - does anyone know if this will happen when a judgement is given? Will each witness and their testimony be referred to?

@TrashyPanda This often happens but not always. A civil judge will always give an analysis of the quality of evidence if there is a conflict that matters. A says B started the fight. B says A started it. C and D were independent witnesses. So in order to reach a view as to which of A & B is telling the truth the judge with need to explain who he believes and why.

Here what Harry says doesn't really matter because the isssue is whether journalists hacked his voicemail or unlawfully obtained info. He can't actually say either way because the case is about inference. The best he can do is say 'only 2 people knew this' but the paper says well actually, a bunch more people would do.

Judges generally do not slate people for the fun of it. So if the Judge thinks Harry is a petulant arse, it isn't relevant to the truth of what he says so there is unlikely to be much of that. They will only make findings about people lying or being evasive etc if it informs their view of why they accept or reject the evidence.

If I were betting from what I've read, I'd expect a judgment along the lines of

The Claimant gave evidence over a day and a half. Although he was clearly distressed by the unfair treatment he believes he has received at the hands of the press, he gave his answers moderately and with courtesy. I accept he sincerely believes he was a victim of phone hacking by employees of the Defendant but [on the balance of probabilities, there isn't a shred of evidence].

The more exposure he gives us , the more he shows his true colours and personality, he's really just a spoiled over privileged man child .
He's used to always being treated as if he's terribly special, I doubt anyone has ever disagreed or said no to him.
Gone is the Harry the media crafted for us , this really is His Truth and it's not pretty !

Yes, jeffgoldblum. I was partiuclarly gobsmacked when he spoke of Chelsy having her own young family now and then he said “This is as distressing for her as it is for me”.

Except… you brought this case, Harry. Deliberately. You chose to go to trial rather than settle. You chose to put a huge number of stories in your sample of 33 that feature your relationship with Chelsy. You are the only person that has dragged this all up again for Chelsy…sitting there claiming how hard this is for her is more than a bit disingenuous.

He's used to always being treated as if he's terribly special, I doubt anyone has ever disagreed or said no to him.

I'm sure that's right. I think the same is true of Prince Charles. It's why they end up spoiled, entitled and petulant. You'd have to be a celestial being to keep your feet on the ground if everywhere you went you were kowtowed to, treated as godlike and everyone fell about laughing at your jokes.

I bet being cross-examined (which is an ordeal for even normal people who do get told 'no' and 'you are talking out your arse' on a regular basis) was an ordeal like nothing he has ever experienced.