Page 2 | Prince Harry’s bid to sue The Sun over phone hacking thrown out by High Court judge

themessygarden · 27/07/2023 13:10

I think this is what Serenster predicted could happen.

I do hope the other victims can go ahead with taking their phone taking claims further and are not hampered by this decision.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 27/07/2023 13:25

I do hope the other victims can go ahead with taking their phone taking claims further and are not hampered by this decision

I hope so too, but surely there shouldn't be a problem providing others have brought their cases within the time allowed?

I'm also wondering if the publishers will try to claim Harry's illegal information gathering claim is out of time too, though whether they'd have needed to do this before now I honestly don't know

MrsFinkelstein · 27/07/2023 13:31

drivinmecrazy · 27/07/2023 11:23

Not really siprised at the split judgement.
Harry clearly was aware of the accusations of phone hacking well before the time limit.
His other part of the claim is another story.
Hope he gets the outcome he's seeking but think he's on a sticky wicket.
He's trying (quite justified) to try and shine a light on the shoddy practices of the British media.
Wether he succeeds has to be dependant on the law, not on which side you might take

My take too.

I was hoping he would win purely because the tabloids are scum, but his case was weak. Hopefully the other claimants will carry the case.

Nobody wins with bad legal judgements.

MrsFinkelstein · 27/07/2023 13:58

Is this the "secret agreement" he said the Palace had with the Press?? Or something else?

Prince Harry’s bid to sue The Sun over phone hacking thrown out by High Court judge

MrsFinkelstein · 27/07/2023 14:01

Nevermind, I found a longer quote.
A spokesperson for NGN said after the ruling: “The High Court has today, in a significant victory for News Group Newspapers, dismissed The Duke of Sussex’s phone hacking claims against both the News Of The World and The Sun.“As we reach the tail end of litigation, NGN is drawing a line under disputed matters, some of which date back more than 20 years ago.“In arguing his case, the Duke of Sussex had alleged a ‘secret agreement’ existed between him/Buckingham Palace and NGN which stopped NGN from asserting that the Duke’s claim had been brought too late.“The Judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, found his claims in relation to the alleged ‘secret agreement’ were not plausible or credible. It is quite clear there was never any such agreement and it is only the Duke who has ever asserted there was.“Mr Justice Fancourt then dismissed the Duke’s phone hacking claims against both the News Of The World and The Sun on the grounds that the claim had been brought too late.“This substantially reduces the scope of his legal claim. The exact nature and scope of any trial of the remainder will be the subject of further hearings.”

PrincessTigger · 27/07/2023 14:20

Not surprised, but I think the PI stuff has more chance of success since there was more evidence & he can also claim ignorance

Howsimplywonderful · 27/07/2023 14:39

You’ve got to laugh at Omid’s take

Mr Justice Fancourt, however, refused to allow Harry to bring phone hacking claim forward due to the allegations being made too late. The judge said the duke can't amend his case to rely on a "secret agreement" between Buckingham Palace and News Group Newspapers executives.

No mention by Omid that the judge found Harry’s claims to be implausible. I guess his tenuous grasp of facts is why he’s no longer at Yahoo

Howsimplywonderful · 27/07/2023 14:44

I do hope the Sun get their arses kicked

Superpinkflowerpower · 27/07/2023 14:44

Oh dear Harry is not doing very well is he 😂

MrsFinkelstein · 27/07/2023 14:52

Howsimplywonderful · 27/07/2023 14:44

I do hope the Sun get their arses kicked

So do I. I'm just not sure Harry's got a strong enough case to be the one who does it. Hopefully the other claimants do.

Delectable · 27/07/2023 15:08

pikkumyy77 · 27/07/2023 11:14

Why would anyone support The Sun and not those attempting to sue to rein in the abuses? I really don’t understand the prime importance given to attacking one plaintiff.

It's the only way to prop up W&K. They do nothing other than socialize. Never had a job, no skills so much so they're congratulated to walking, shopping or giving medals. 😂

AliceOlive · 27/07/2023 15:31

Delectable · 27/07/2023 15:08

It's the only way to prop up W&K. They do nothing other than socialize. Never had a job, no skills so much so they're congratulated to walking, shopping or giving medals. 😂

Show quote history

You seem to be manufacturing unshared hostilities.

AliceOlive · 27/07/2023 15:33

In arguing his case, the Duke of Sussex had alleged a ‘secret agreement’ existed between him/Buckingham Palace and NGN which stopped NGN from asserting that the Duke’s claim had been brought too late.

Can someone explain this to me?

Howsimplywonderful · 27/07/2023 15:39

Where is @serenster 😀

Gilmorehill · 27/07/2023 15:45

AliceOlive · 27/07/2023 15:33

In arguing his case, the Duke of Sussex had alleged a ‘secret agreement’ existed between him/Buckingham Palace and NGN which stopped NGN from asserting that the Duke’s claim had been brought too late.

Can someone explain this to me?

IIRC H was only suing now because he didn’t know about the phone hacking. He claimed PW and BP had settled secretly with the Sun about the phone hacking, unknown to H because he was off in Afghanistan. The judge found this claim of a secret agreement to be implausible and therefore H had left it too late to sue.

AliceOlive · 27/07/2023 15:49

Gilmorehill · 27/07/2023 15:45

IIRC H was only suing now because he didn’t know about the phone hacking. He claimed PW and BP had settled secretly with the Sun about the phone hacking, unknown to H because he was off in Afghanistan. The judge found this claim of a secret agreement to be implausible and therefore H had left it too late to sue.

Show quote history

Got it. Oh dear.

MrsLeonFarrell · 27/07/2023 15:50

Is anyone else part of this case? I really want The Sun held accountable but I'm not surprised the secret agreement argument was thrown out

PrincessTigger · 27/07/2023 16:14

MrsLeonFarrell · 27/07/2023 15:50

Is anyone else part of this case? I really want The Sun held accountable but I'm not surprised the secret agreement argument was thrown out

There are other claimants and also the other half of Harry’s case (illegal information gathering) is still going to trial

PrincessTigger · 27/07/2023 16:17

Gilmorehill · 27/07/2023 15:45

IIRC H was only suing now because he didn’t know about the phone hacking. He claimed PW and BP had settled secretly with the Sun about the phone hacking, unknown to H because he was off in Afghanistan. The judge found this claim of a secret agreement to be implausible and therefore H had left it too late to sue.

Show quote history

It was the weakest part of the case… imo completely made up. They could have demanded BP confirm it existed, if it did.

Original poster

MamoruHisaishi · 27/07/2023 16:26

kirinm · 27/07/2023 13:10

How odd.

Never mind the inaccuracy of the original post

I see this part of MN is still as toxic as ever

Show quote history

How was the original post inaccurate though? The phone hacking claims were dismissed/thrown out! 🤨

OP posts:

myrtleWilson · 27/07/2023 16:31

@AliceOlive I think this may be the sequence of events

PH's evidence was inconsistent - firstly he was unaware of (apart from one in 2006) incidences of phone hacking etc and therefore couldn't have brought the claim earlier. His evidence also says - he was made aware in 2010 of possible hacking. NGN argue this would put him into a timeline of needing to launch action prior to 2019 - which is when he did (possibly, I'm a bit confused!)

The secret agreement argument was advanced in a requested late amendment to his application The upshot of amendment was that due to a secret agreement (amusingly capitalised in the judgement!) it was agreed that Royal Household would not launch direct claims to avoid having to reveal sensitive info in court but at the conclusion of the MTVIL (mobile telephone voicemail interception litigation) and the Royal Household would engage with NGN and apology/settlement reached.

The challenge facing PH as espoused by Judge, is that his recollection of the Secret Agreement wasn't present in 2021 (March and later in November) when he filed his 'Reply' but he recalled it when reviewing correspondence (internal Royal Household staff/NGN) when Sally Osman was communicating with NGN expressing a desire to get everything sorted pre PH/MM wedding with references to having to go legal if not sorted informally (am paraphrasing!). This review of comms & recollection of Secret Agreement apparently took place as PH was preparing his evidence for trial in 2023 and therefore led to late application to amend the contradictory elements of this previous statements.

The 2017/2018 correspondence (allowed by HMTQE2) between Royal Household & NGN also suggests that the 'Secret Agreement' to wait until end of MTVIL was no longer in play as Sally Osman is suggesting legal alternatives and MTVIL not yet concluded. PH argued that the palace had kept him out of the loop about the Secret Agreement but the Judge decided this was not consistent with PH's evidence

PH also claimed that PW had a huge settlement with NGN and NGN hadn't sought strike out on terms of out of time - PH's argument was that this was evidence of the Secret Agreement in action. The Judge's view was that this settlement wasn't evidence of a 2012 Secret Agreement but that NGN didnt want to get embroiled in litigation.
PH's legal team argued that the offer of a settlement from NGN to PH in 2019 was evidence of Secret Agreement - Judge disagrees and says it is the same scenario as PW

Almost at end of his judgement, Judge writes

For all the reasons that I have given, I am unable to conclude that there is a sufficiently plausible evidential basis for the new case based on the secret agreement to justify the grant of permission to amend at a late stage of the proceedings. The lack of credibility arises from: the unexplained lateness of the plea, linked to the nature of the estoppel plea; the improbability of a secret agreement being made in the particular terms pleaded; the inconsistency with the Duke’s currently pleaded case, which is twice supported by statements of truth, and with his evidence in other proceedings, supported by a statement of truth; the absence of any explanation for the new factual case being raised; and the absence of any other witness or documentary evidence to support it.

obviously am not a lawyer so all faults in my reading of the judgement are mine alone and happy to be corrected!

(The to-ing and fro-ing between different statements, submissions, amendments and timeline jumps between 2021 and 2023 and then 2006 or 2012 make reading the judgement akin to a legal take on Inception!!)

AliceOlive · 27/07/2023 16:37

Oh Dear Oh Dear.

myrtleWilson · 27/07/2023 16:37

Slight (but hopefully not a late) amendment to above - the C&P from Judgement is not at the end of total judgement but of the bit about the sequencing of the secret agreement.... That C&P was para 91 and judgement carries on until para 143!

PrincessTigger · 27/07/2023 16:38

myrtleWilson · 27/07/2023 16:31

@AliceOlive I think this may be the sequence of events

PH's evidence was inconsistent - firstly he was unaware of (apart from one in 2006) incidences of phone hacking etc and therefore couldn't have brought the claim earlier. His evidence also says - he was made aware in 2010 of possible hacking. NGN argue this would put him into a timeline of needing to launch action prior to 2019 - which is when he did (possibly, I'm a bit confused!)

The secret agreement argument was advanced in a requested late amendment to his application The upshot of amendment was that due to a secret agreement (amusingly capitalised in the judgement!) it was agreed that Royal Household would not launch direct claims to avoid having to reveal sensitive info in court but at the conclusion of the MTVIL (mobile telephone voicemail interception litigation) and the Royal Household would engage with NGN and apology/settlement reached.

The challenge facing PH as espoused by Judge, is that his recollection of the Secret Agreement wasn't present in 2021 (March and later in November) when he filed his 'Reply' but he recalled it when reviewing correspondence (internal Royal Household staff/NGN) when Sally Osman was communicating with NGN expressing a desire to get everything sorted pre PH/MM wedding with references to having to go legal if not sorted informally (am paraphrasing!). This review of comms & recollection of Secret Agreement apparently took place as PH was preparing his evidence for trial in 2023 and therefore led to late application to amend the contradictory elements of this previous statements.

The 2017/2018 correspondence (allowed by HMTQE2) between Royal Household & NGN also suggests that the 'Secret Agreement' to wait until end of MTVIL was no longer in play as Sally Osman is suggesting legal alternatives and MTVIL not yet concluded. PH argued that the palace had kept him out of the loop about the Secret Agreement but the Judge decided this was not consistent with PH's evidence

PH also claimed that PW had a huge settlement with NGN and NGN hadn't sought strike out on terms of out of time - PH's argument was that this was evidence of the Secret Agreement in action. The Judge's view was that this settlement wasn't evidence of a 2012 Secret Agreement but that NGN didnt want to get embroiled in litigation.
PH's legal team argued that the offer of a settlement from NGN to PH in 2019 was evidence of Secret Agreement - Judge disagrees and says it is the same scenario as PW

Almost at end of his judgement, Judge writes

For all the reasons that I have given, I am unable to conclude that there is a sufficiently plausible evidential basis for the new case based on the secret agreement to justify the grant of permission to amend at a late stage of the proceedings. The lack of credibility arises from: the unexplained lateness of the plea, linked to the nature of the estoppel plea; the improbability of a secret agreement being made in the particular terms pleaded; the inconsistency with the Duke’s currently pleaded case, which is twice supported by statements of truth, and with his evidence in other proceedings, supported by a statement of truth; the absence of any explanation for the new factual case being raised; and the absence of any other witness or documentary evidence to support it.

obviously am not a lawyer so all faults in my reading of the judgement are mine alone and happy to be corrected!

(The to-ing and fro-ing between different statements, submissions, amendments and timeline jumps between 2021 and 2023 and then 2006 or 2012 make reading the judgement akin to a legal take on Inception!!)

Thank you! Very useful!

Original poster

MamoruHisaishi · 27/07/2023 16:45

myrtleWilson · 27/07/2023 16:31

@AliceOlive I think this may be the sequence of events

PH's evidence was inconsistent - firstly he was unaware of (apart from one in 2006) incidences of phone hacking etc and therefore couldn't have brought the claim earlier. His evidence also says - he was made aware in 2010 of possible hacking. NGN argue this would put him into a timeline of needing to launch action prior to 2019 - which is when he did (possibly, I'm a bit confused!)

The secret agreement argument was advanced in a requested late amendment to his application The upshot of amendment was that due to a secret agreement (amusingly capitalised in the judgement!) it was agreed that Royal Household would not launch direct claims to avoid having to reveal sensitive info in court but at the conclusion of the MTVIL (mobile telephone voicemail interception litigation) and the Royal Household would engage with NGN and apology/settlement reached.

The challenge facing PH as espoused by Judge, is that his recollection of the Secret Agreement wasn't present in 2021 (March and later in November) when he filed his 'Reply' but he recalled it when reviewing correspondence (internal Royal Household staff/NGN) when Sally Osman was communicating with NGN expressing a desire to get everything sorted pre PH/MM wedding with references to having to go legal if not sorted informally (am paraphrasing!). This review of comms & recollection of Secret Agreement apparently took place as PH was preparing his evidence for trial in 2023 and therefore led to late application to amend the contradictory elements of this previous statements.

The 2017/2018 correspondence (allowed by HMTQE2) between Royal Household & NGN also suggests that the 'Secret Agreement' to wait until end of MTVIL was no longer in play as Sally Osman is suggesting legal alternatives and MTVIL not yet concluded. PH argued that the palace had kept him out of the loop about the Secret Agreement but the Judge decided this was not consistent with PH's evidence

PH also claimed that PW had a huge settlement with NGN and NGN hadn't sought strike out on terms of out of time - PH's argument was that this was evidence of the Secret Agreement in action. The Judge's view was that this settlement wasn't evidence of a 2012 Secret Agreement but that NGN didnt want to get embroiled in litigation.
PH's legal team argued that the offer of a settlement from NGN to PH in 2019 was evidence of Secret Agreement - Judge disagrees and says it is the same scenario as PW

Almost at end of his judgement, Judge writes

For all the reasons that I have given, I am unable to conclude that there is a sufficiently plausible evidential basis for the new case based on the secret agreement to justify the grant of permission to amend at a late stage of the proceedings. The lack of credibility arises from: the unexplained lateness of the plea, linked to the nature of the estoppel plea; the improbability of a secret agreement being made in the particular terms pleaded; the inconsistency with the Duke’s currently pleaded case, which is twice supported by statements of truth, and with his evidence in other proceedings, supported by a statement of truth; the absence of any explanation for the new factual case being raised; and the absence of any other witness or documentary evidence to support it.

obviously am not a lawyer so all faults in my reading of the judgement are mine alone and happy to be corrected!

(The to-ing and fro-ing between different statements, submissions, amendments and timeline jumps between 2021 and 2023 and then 2006 or 2012 make reading the judgement akin to a legal take on Inception!!)

Thanks for summarizing this part. I really like how the judge highlighted the inconsistency of prince Harry’s statements as partly why he doesn’t believe that the secret agreement claims were credible. Harry has a problem with facts and objective truth.

OP posts: