Page 6 | Prince Harry’s bid to sue The Sun over phone hacking thrown out by High Court judge

smilesy · 28/07/2023 17:23

Novella4 · 28/07/2023 17:18

@smilesy Willy is

No.

We know the royals need the media .

They rely on them for exposure ( don’t want another Aberdeen do we Willy?) and to help manipulate the public. Look how many people on here are defending the indefensible- eg Charles’ 45 % pay increase .

Willy pocketing the money and keeping quiet makes him look in cahoots

How? It’s what everyone does. And a settlement is unlikely to be reached if the other party thinks that it will be publicised. Do you think everyone should be obliged to declare if they have reached a settlement then? He obviously doesn’t need the money and I’m not sure he pocketed it as you say, but regardless he is as entitled to privacy in these matters as is everyone else. Including Harry if he had done the same. Or would you be offended if he had taken a settlement?

Roussette · 28/07/2023 17:28

Do you think everyone should be obliged to declare if they have reached a settlement then?

No, they are a unique taxpayer funded family after all....

PrincessTigger · 28/07/2023 17:33

Why should W have to announce if he got a settlement though? Even if it was a civil settlement, phone hacking is a crime. Victims of crime getting some kind of justice or damages isn’t suspicious and doesn’t mean they’ve done something wrong.

myrtleWilson · 28/07/2023 17:40

Where is this lack of privacy line drawn then? Court settlements, all things financial, health?
Press releases from the Palace confirming the Princess of Wales has had an inconclusive smear test and is having further investigations?

AliceOlive · 28/07/2023 17:43

myrtleWilson · 28/07/2023 17:40

Where is this lack of privacy line drawn then? Court settlements, all things financial, health?
Press releases from the Palace confirming the Princess of Wales has had an inconclusive smear test and is having further investigations?

Exactly. I think some posters would have their lives be like the court of Versailles where the King’s morning ritual was open to the public.

StefanosHill · 28/07/2023 17:51

Serenster · 28/07/2023 17:07

Why would it be obvious, Roussette?

And I find your stance perplexing. Harry absolutely should be fighting for the right to keep his private information private. Except for the outcome of the battles he has behind the scenes to assert his rights. Those should be public.. I can’t follow that.

This

IcedPurple · 28/07/2023 17:53

Novella4 · 28/07/2023 16:30

I don’t know why Harry didn’t take his case within the time limit ( if that is the true reason that that part of the case isn’t continuing) but there has been a benefit for Harry regardless and his campaign.

He reminded the general public about the toxic relationship and secret deals between the ‘royals’ and the media.
Reminded us all that Willy took the cash and kept his mouth shut.
And before someone says it - I have nothing but respect for the families who took the papers to court , I don’t begrudge them a penny.
But Willy Windsor ? Rich on the public dime , keeping his head down , no guts or even interest to fight for what’s right ? That’s a bad look .

Events over recent weeks have proved Harry right
As someone said upthread - he has deep pockets. He can take the risk.

The vast majority of civil cases are settled out of court. This is very much encouraged as it keeps these cases from clogging up the overburdened legal system. Courts exist to enforce the law, not as a forum for people with 'deep pockets' to pursue personal vendettas. So if a case can be settled without burdening the publicly funded legal system, why would William, or anybody else, not do this?

I don't doubt for one second that the same people complaining about 'Willy' 'pocketing the money' would be whining about him wasting public resources if he had gone to court rather than accept a settlement.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/07/2023 19:00

Serenster · 28/07/2023 17:22

@Puzzledandpissedoff on the costs point, that depends. Costs may be determined at this stage, or left to be determined later. It’s up to the court.

As for the different treatment of the hacking and the other illegal information gathering, the judge found that Prince Harry knew his phone had been hacked more than 6 years before he filed his claim. That was therefore out of time and the relevant sections of his claim were struck out.

The judge decided the evidence was less clear on the other things Harry was complaining about. He thought it was arguable that Harry had found out about them at a later date, so those claims could be in time. He did not decide that those claims are in time, just that they could be. So Harry gets to have a hearing on them, and in the course of that hearing both sides can produce evidence to show when he first learned of them. If they too are found to be out of time, Harry will lose on those too.

Once again very many thanks for the clarification, Serenster - extremely useful

I'll be honest; I knew that out of court settlements could be kept confidential but not that they had to be, though in this case it seems a bit of a moot point even if Harry had gone down that route
Should that have happened and he'd collected, I believe the chances of him keeping schtum about it would have been nil ... as with the details of a previous case which Scobie was posting about in minutes, IMO someone would almost certainly have been authorised to "break" the story

IcedPurple · 28/07/2023 19:14

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/07/2023 19:00

Once again very many thanks for the clarification, Serenster - extremely useful

I'll be honest; I knew that out of court settlements could be kept confidential but not that they had to be, though in this case it seems a bit of a moot point even if Harry had gone down that route
Should that have happened and he'd collected, I believe the chances of him keeping schtum about it would have been nil ... as with the details of a previous case which Scobie was posting about in minutes, IMO someone would almost certainly have been authorised to "break" the story

Show quote history

If the hypothetical agreement included a confidentiality clause, as they often do, discussing it in public would potentially be breaking the terms of that agreement.

MrsFinkelstein · 28/07/2023 19:45

AliceOlive · 28/07/2023 16:35

I really hate the pitting of these brothers against one another. That’s quite a toxic spin on this in the post above. I also have a hard time understand such extreme anger toward a person you’ve never met, based solely on the word of another person. (I know that’s not unique to people that hate William.)

This, it's distasteful and unnecessary.

MrsFinkelstein · 28/07/2023 19:47

Serenster · 28/07/2023 16:37

But Willy Windsor ? Rich on the public dime , keeping his head down , no guts or even interest to fight for what’s right ? That’s a bad look

just a reminder that it was William going straight to Scotland Yard when he realised his phone must have been hacked that lead directly to the criminal trials that closed down the News of the World.

So far all Harry’s crusade has resulted in his a healthy financial year for his, and the opposing side’s lawyers. And an awful lot of clicks for the media he hates. And him breaching his brother’s privacy while claiming to protect his own.

Exactly this.

I hope Harry and the other claimants win, but he's not achieved anything helpful so far. IMO.

Original poster

MamoruHisaishi · 28/07/2023 20:10

Thanks Serenster for explaining it so well.

I think it’s great that William took action by going to the police immediately after he found out he was being hacked. This lead to criminal investigations and public exposure of the phone hackings that were going on at the time. Meanwhile Harry didn’t bother to pursue any legal wrongdoings regarding the phone hacking even though he was aware of it until after the time allowed to do so. Not sure how that is supposed to be more admirable.

OP posts:

Original poster

MamoruHisaishi · 28/07/2023 20:19

IcedPurple · 28/07/2023 17:53

The vast majority of civil cases are settled out of court. This is very much encouraged as it keeps these cases from clogging up the overburdened legal system. Courts exist to enforce the law, not as a forum for people with 'deep pockets' to pursue personal vendettas. So if a case can be settled without burdening the publicly funded legal system, why would William, or anybody else, not do this?

I don't doubt for one second that the same people complaining about 'Willy' 'pocketing the money' would be whining about him wasting public resources if he had gone to court rather than accept a settlement.

Show quote history

Yes, not sure why it’s being spun as William somehow being in cahoots with the media because he accepted a private settlement instead of choosing to drag it out into court and creating an even bigger spectacle of his and Catherine’s private lives. Other celebrities like Hugh Grant and Elton John have also settled privately, as well as countless other people.

OP posts:

Roussette · 28/07/2023 20:24

Elton John is part of this current court case. He arrived in court in March with Prince Harry and others.

smilesy · 28/07/2023 21:36

Roussette · 28/07/2023 20:24

Elton John is part of this current court case. He arrived in court in March with Prince Harry and others.

Not for phone hacking though. Elton settled that out of court. Presumably he is there with regard to other illegal information fathering allegations Link

Hurley, John and Mills settle out of court over phone hacking claims

The Sun’s parent company, News Group Newspapers, avoids trial

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/31/hurley-john-and-mills-settle-out-of-court-over-phone-hacking-claims

smilesy · 28/07/2023 21:37

Gathering. Not fathering 🤪

Roussette · 28/07/2023 21:40

Yes. Illegal gathering of information. That's what I thought.

StartupRepair · 28/07/2023 21:57

I wonder how much of Harry's case is about himself rather than others? In the recent court case he leaned on examples of things that had allegedly happened to Chelsey.

smilesy · 28/07/2023 21:58

Roussette · 28/07/2023 21:40

Yes. Illegal gathering of information. That's what I thought.

Oh right. From the way you had responded to the previous post, I thought you were disagreeing that Elton had settled the phone hacking out of court 🤷‍♀️

Roussette · 28/07/2023 21:59

smilesy · 28/07/2023 21:58

Oh right. From the way you had responded to the previous post, I thought you were disagreeing that Elton had settled the phone hacking out of court 🤷‍♀️

Show quote history

No

AliceOlive · 29/07/2023 01:07

MrsFinkelstein · 28/07/2023 19:45

This, it's distasteful and unnecessary.

Show quote history

@MrsFinkelstein i misread your post at first and thought you were saying my post was distasteful. 🤣

MrsFinkelstein · 29/07/2023 10:15

AliceOlive · 29/07/2023 01:07

@MrsFinkelstein i misread your post at first and thought you were saying my post was distasteful. 🤣

Show quote history

😆
Not at all, was completely agreeing with your point.

Ivyusername · 29/07/2023 20:22

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

PrincessTigger · 29/07/2023 20:27

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

My view is that we should err on the side of free speech. The tabloids do not behave the way they did pre-Leveson, so this process is not one of changing the entire media landscape it’s about settling of the personal injustices which occurred in previous decades.

Tigger1895 · 29/07/2023 20:30

It seemed like you pick and choose what you want to post. Indicating you aren’t a fan and enjoy spreading misinformation.