@Howsimplywonderful
If @Serenster has a problem with my posts she can report them, or indeed tell me not to engage her.
On the issue of "actual evidence" Serenster, my understanding is that the whole case Harry brought is one that relies on inference. My memory of the rules of evidence from law school is that there is a distinction made between circumstantial and direct evidence.
Sure, using circumstantial evidence, and asking the judge to draw adverse inferences from, for instance the journalists not coming to defend their stories is a harder hill for Harry to climb, but the lower threshold of balance of probabilities that applies to civil cases as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal means that his case is not entirely hopeless.
I found it interesting that the judge, of his own initiative asked why the journalists themselves were not appearing.
A key plank of Harry's case is actually based on the absence of call data and other evidence which he argues was deliberately destroyed.
It is simply not possible that, on a balance of probabilities, out of all the people in the royal family who were hacked, including those around Harry, he alone, was not hacked. Inferences can be drawn from the invoices he submitted that were linked to stories about him. The evidence of the journalist who testified under protest was particularly revealing as many of there stories were linked to payments to a known phone hacker. I found the construction of his case to be compelling a, and the summing up by David Sheldon. His reliance on the Amory v Delamirie case showed the scaffolding they are building.
I will go out on a limb and say that, based on the little that I have seen, Harry and his team have done enough, on a balance of probabilities, to win this case.