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

Perhaps his money would have been better spent on supporting someone with a stronger case, rather than airing his own grievances? Or the Hacked Off campaign? Of course, this is only the start of his evidence, and maybe we'll get to a smoking gun.

There is one defendant, multiple claimants (Harry is one of I think nearly 100?). The thread is about the court case, yes, but it's pretty contemporaneous and right now Harry is being questioned by counsel for the defense. When Sherbourne gets up, let's see what happens. The trial is expected to run for some 7 weeks, it's already been 2 (or 3?) weeks in the running. This morning is just one bit of it.

A court of law is there to decide if anything illegal happened, not to “shine a light “ on anything. It doesn’t matter whether we believe tabloids behave badly or not (which I’m sure we all do), the court is there to examine evidence, not “feels”

They're just repeating the same rumours and splashy headlines found elsewhere.

Forbes Magazine knows very well that even if they did get a '$100 million contract' from Netflix, something for which there is no proof, only a very small fraction of that would be net profit for them.

Firstly, it’s Day One and there’s lots more to come. No one should be making any decisions about evidence until the trail is completed.

Secondly, the judge only has to rule on the balance of probabilities and therefore strong circumstantial evidence, such as previously admitted hacking, gaps in the defence, journalists not appearing to give evidence and the like, can be taken into account. His lawyers, of course, argue that it should be, MGNs lawyers argue it’s not enough. The judge will decide.

There have been any number of court cases and out of court settlements against the tabloids. This is very old news.

Besides, the law courts are there to apply the justice system, not to give rich people an opportunity to 'shine a light' on their own grievances.

I’m not going to lie, this is utterly cringeworthy and I’d expect a child to respond better,

Green moves on to another article headlined “Harry to lead cadets march”.
Harry alleges that the article reveals private information about his private life and personal life, namely being selected to lead a cadets’ parade at Eton.
A spokesperson refers to Harry being “delighted” in the article.
Green asks Harry if he was aware a St James’s Palace spokesperson had released the information the day before the article.
“That’s a classic example of when the palace would put out a statement,” he said.
Green asks if he accepts then that the Mirror article was based on information actually issued by St James’s Palace.
Harry says he finds it suspicious that the article has no byline and then a follow-up article later in the day about the same matter had the byline of a journalist known to be associated with illegal information gathering

That doesn't really answer my question.

Harry's had several hours to make his case. Not about how ghastly the tabloids were 2 decades ago, but about whether the specific stories referenced were obtained by illegal means. Do you believe he has done so?

I was responding to the poster who said someone wealthy should fund a non-wealthy person’s case to shine a light on it.

Secondly, the judge only has to rule on the balance of probabilities and therefore strong circumstantial evidence, such as previously admitted hacking, gaps in the defence, journalists not appearing to give evidence and the like, can be taken into account. His lawyers, of course, argue that it should be, MGNs lawyers argue it’s not enough. The judge will decide

they don’t find someone guilty of new hacking because they did it before, what a ludicrous idea. And there is nothing to suggest any one of these journalists even did.

I believe he is so far showing (as it is early days) that on the balance of probabilities, yes, they hacked his phone.

I should add ‘…hacked his phone to obtain those stories’

Harry's had several hours to make his case. Not about how ghastly the tabloids were 2 decades ago, but about whether the specific stories referenced were obtained by illegal means. Do you believe he has done so

yes, it’s about 35 specific articles which they are going through 1 by 1. Harry’s lawyers have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the info in the story was gained by illegal means. So far they aren’t even close.

Really? Are you reading the court summaries? How can you come to that conclusion?

It’s strong circumstantial evidence and admissible. It’s not a criminal trial, it’s a civil one and the rules are different.

The principal here is not whether the tabloids are wrong or not: they are.

What is the issue is that Harry is using his testimony to betray the privacy of his family and friends, all while crying about his own privacy. This is the very reason why the PR tactic is to not engage.

Taking the stand in a case like this is always dicey. Because it is your evidence and reputation vs your opponent. And if you don’t have a strong case (or have lied to yourself and others to make your case seem strong) then you will reveal yourself to be a twat in the witness box and ruin your own reputation. Think of Rebekah Vardy- what an incredible self own.

Did you see the bit earlier where evidence was given showing he didn't even have a phone at the relevant time?

Are you maybe reading a different feed to everyone else can you link this please , where the journalists who write these articles have previously been found guilty of illegal activities and the court has deemed it admissible?

Considering how Harry and Meghan treated Jason Knauf when he came forward and gave a witness statement that was unfavourable to Meghan in her case, this is an interesting take from Harry's statement on witnesses coming forward:

"I note that there isn’t a witness statement from either Dean Rousewell, who is bylined in ten of the fifty selected articles, or from any of the other 31 journalists who are bylined in those articles. Although I understand that they are not obliged to come and give evidence, I find it absolutely appalling that these people refuse to do so or subject themselves to cross examination especially as I have been forced to relive a horrific period in my life in order to prepare this witness statement and will be only too pleased to subject myself to cross examination in Court. Their cowardice speaks volumes, and I don’t understand how they are allowed to hide."

From what I've read in the Guardian live feed - I think a fairly neutral source in this case? - each article discussed has so far involved:

• Harry saying he believes he was hacked
• the defence lawyer showing that the info in the article was either in another public source before that article was published, or released by a Palace spokesperson
• Harry then saying that the story would have triggered an attempt to find out further info through illegal means, but not being able to point out any info in the article that added to the earlier source or Palace spokesperson

But, this is only the start of course

What evidence has he provided to make you come to this conclusion?

In the context of the cadet story, it's hard to imagine anyone going to illegal lengths to pad it out.

It's hardly even interesting in the first place.

Harry’s lawyers have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the info in the story was gained by illegal means. So far they aren’t even close

Frankly he doesn't seem to be even trying - I simply don't understand why, when invited to produce anything coherent, he says again and again "you'd have to ask the journalist"

They're not asking journalists - they're asking HIM and it's his case, so what the hell's he playing at??

That statement about witnesses is so petulant, isn't it? 'they hurt me, they need to be hauled into court to account publicly for it.' Wouldn't those witnesses have been summoned if need be?

The MGN lawyer mentioned it yesterday.

From the BBC:

’Green said none of the whistle-blowing journalists who admitted phone hacking on other stories said they had hacked the prince’s phone’

For the purposes of this case, MGN are not denying phone hacking took place, they’re denying it happened to PH.