Extensive Phone Hacking by MGN

[Roussette]

So... Harry has won his case.

As lawyers are saying now... this is massive. 15 out of 33 accusations of hacking by Harry were upheld as a result of phone hacking and other illegal practices.
Hacking and blagging were even taking place during the Leveson enquiry.

He has won damages of £140,000 plus. And before this thread descends into Harry hate, please think of all the other claimants who have also had their claims upheld and damages awarded to them. They went through hell, medical records hacked and reported on, trackers on cars, phones hacked...

It's not about the money, it's about 'accountability of power'.

It did occur to me that the royal family are super happy about Harry’s hacking drive as it will give him a new sense of purpose and the eye of Sauron has turned

It should keep him busy for a year or two

I think the actual problem is this board is usually devoted to trashing him on a continual, daily basis and any positivity really bothers some people. I think it would be good for some to take a break from that negativity, its not good for you to spend all day immersed in that in my opinion.

This win (and it is a win for him, for the public, and against underhand and the illegal tactics of the media) has hit some people hard, especially if you really want Harry to fail at everything.

Is there anyone who has said they wanted him to fail in this case ?
I think one thing we all agree on is hacking is wrong , Harry was hacked and we are glad he won
I may be wrong as I haven’t read the whole thread
As you can tell I’m not a fan but it doesn’t mean I don’t support him winning the case or indeed all the future cases if they find in his favour

From the article just posted:

In its defence of the civil court action brought by Prince Harry, Mirror Group Newspapers argued to the death that there was not a shred of evidence to support the Duke of Sussex’s claims of a lifetime of illegal information gathering and phone hacking. “Zilch, zero, nil, de nada, niente, nothing,” Andrew Green KC, the newspapers’ barrister, insisted in summing up. Piers Morgan, Mirror editor for much of the period in question, reiterated that denial – and took the opportunity to double down on his vindictive and blatantly self-serving assault on Harry’s reputation – in a prepared statement for the press on his doorstep on Friday. The damning 386-page judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt, published earlier that morning, tells a very different story, however.

Good to remember what was said by MGN, and Piers Morgan. No evidence? Oh no Piers, there is evidence of 'extensive hacking'. I remember people on this board saying he had no evidence too. So I think some people, certainly media people, are not happy about this win at all.

@ALittleTeawithmilk from the article you posted:

There are also dozens of new witnesses and extensive judicial findings, Harris added. “The claimants stand ready to assist the police and CPS with identifying such material relevant to the original criminal conduct and to the new questions of perjury and perverting the course of justice,” he said.

That is good to read!

I would like to think that this win for Harry opens the floodgates and enables other to be emboldened to push through with their claims.

I remember people on this board saying he had no evidence too

I remember also, and quite predictably they are not on this thread despite being prolific in posts of their conviction he had no case. But that's OK, it's the case win that matters. That's all that matters to be honest, whatever we might say.

There are some marvellous insightful posts on this thread and on ‘ the Duchy of Lancaster theft’ and on the ‘Byline times Dan wooton and the‘royals’ - what a picture is created by those threads combined.

Thank you to the posters who have dedicated so much time and energy.

I also think Spare was about getting it all out there so the press have nothing on him. There’s nothing stopping William and Charles from doing the same is there ….?

I think everyone wanted phone hacking and other illegal information gathering to be exposed and prosecuted where possible (and civil remedy to the victims)

There was criticism in contemporaneous threads of Harry's performance in Court because on some answers he was weak - could not really answer when asked why some of examples had to be from phone hacking or other illegal activity. He lost on over half of the sample of 33 articles (of a total of 148 cited - presumably choosing the clearest/strongest examples) he chose to put forward for examination at trial - winning on 15.

So I think the earlier criticism of the weakness of some of his responses has been shown to be correct. But he won on the stronger ones, and that is of course right.

So, so true!

In hindsight, Mirror group must be regretting the total arrogance they displayed in deciding to fight this case so aggressively and so condescendingly.

Maybe they, like so many MN posters, drunk their own Kool-Aid in thinking Harry was a numbskull, an idiot, a man-child, a whiner, etc etc etc, as they spend their hours and days screeching in their tabloid, and that the other claimants weren't even worthy of consideration.

Well I'm ready to bet that not only MGN, but the parent companies of the Sun and the Daily Mail, are sitting up and paying attention now.

Also - this is off topic but I believe there is a need for another topic - ie ‘the ‘royal’ family ‘ can be left to those who like to talk about clothes and diamonds and nothing of any more substance - as it was years ago I believe .

What should a new topic be called and where would it sit ?
These recent threads are so wide ranging they really are about more than the ‘royals’ - through ‘royals’ sit at the centre of the web

So I think the earlier criticism of the weakness of some of his responses has been shown to be correct. But he won on the stronger ones, and that is of course right.

Unless those people were present in court, and identified the claims and the responses, I am afraid thats a bit of a weak defence. Those who said he hadn't proven his claims, didn't specify those that were not proven in the judgement, I am unaware of any in-depth conversation about each claim in fact. So I think you're misrepresenting the criticisms tbh. I posted an article from a BBC reporter who was actually present in court and mentions the headlines, repeated on the board, and were, in the reporters view, a complete misrepresentation of his testimony.

We should also remember that some here have also called into question his claims about negative briefing from the institution. Well this is clearly true, and the judge refers to the unsuccessful claims being a result of people other than Harry or the press, speaking about it. So he has been proven to be correct, both that the media engaged in UIG against him, and that people have leaked stories about him.

There was a BBC article by someone who attended the court case and said that the reporting in much of the print media painted a very different picture that she'd seen in court.

The reporting appeared to be skewed to show Harry as weak and unreliable. There is such a conflict of interest when the press are reporting on someone who is bringing actions against them.

@Novella4 people have asked for that alternative space before, MN don't seem interested. Could ask in Site Stuff though.

Yes and his own slaying dragons statement 🤭 . 'King Harry' on twitter 🤣

I mean I'd like to think we're all in agreement that the media being held to account is a good thing but we all know the yee ha'ing is more due to the tedious old Bitter Harold v the UK/the rf ongoing circus.

Oh do we really need a special topic for Harry supporters?

Tbf the folk talking about hair and lovely clothes seem to be on the Markle thread..

You do know that the Court was public, and his verbatim answers are public too?

So you didn't need to be in court for a word-for-word account.

And yes, there were instances of a demonstrable leak from elsewhere (eg one of Chelsey's friends was specified) and then he lost.

@Cakester
Oh I didn’t realise that !

I think it’s odd that there is no Republican thread esp as we near only 50% support for monarchy.
But I know not everyone who criticises the ‘royals’ here is Republican . It’s complicated .

Maybe it’s like the media and the pro/ anti arguments keep up engagement here for mumsnet.

Edited to reply to cakester

Yes, it's hilarious to see how all the MN legal experts who, with pages and pages of forensic detail, were asserting from morning to night that Harry the dimwit had no case, are bizarrely silent now that they have been proved to be the dimwits wrong...

Egg on faces, there. And let's see what happens with the RAVEC case that people are similarly enthused about on another thread...

The usual H&M haters are looking to the fact that Harry 'only' won on 15 of his 33 sample cases and only £141k for some kind of solace or vindication, conveniently forgetting that a) he only needed to win on 1, and b) the judge was positively excoriating in his judgement of Mirror group editors and management including Piers Morgan and Sly Bailey, all of who he said blatantly lied in the Leveson enquiry. That is absolutely priceless, and worth infinitely more to Harry and the general public than the precise number of articles or the £141k. Frankly, £141k sounds like it'd barely cover the legal fees were his lawyers David Sherborne et al charging him full fees.

And there will be a costs order. But obv, this wasn't about the money.

Forget Harry, this is much much bigger. Phone hacking scandal has been exposed for a while, Sienna Miller, various actors, sports people Milly Dowler etc. These hackers have ruined people's lives and interfered with murder cases, politics etc. Many people have settled out of court. Harry did not. Press in this country is dire and really need to be regulated.

Completely agree

But I think the spotlight on Harry may prove to be a double edged sword. His case wasn't the strongest of the claims, but he attracted a lot of publicity.

And I suspect that as his spotlight moves on, what should be the bigger picture will fade.

I am well aware, yes, and I am aware that the narrative on the board was based on tabloid accounts, not on court testimony, as journalists present have written about, and obviously the judge also agreed with. He had evidence, they all did, and the evidence showed extensive hacking by MGN. That was not what some here said, far far from it.

re RAVEC is do wonder if part of H’s motivation is to hopefully bring the actual operation to a greater audience
I read that many people believe it’s ‘the government ‘ which decides on security . Handy distancing there . In fact there is a subcommittee on which sit several ‘royal’ aides . From what Ive read that sub group has a lot of influence .

Which of the 4 claimants was the strongest then? Two lost as they were out of time, Michael Le Vell won 4 out of 17, Harry 15 out of 33.