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'.

@Cakester
In a civil case (as this was), the evidence can be a lot less than in a criminal case.
First one has to establish that phone hacking (or other illegal information gathering) was happening, and secondly, that it was happening by the MGN.
Harry won 15 of his many cases or which approx 30 were examined in detail.
Reading the Judges explanation is revealing, in that where it cannot be established the source of the article, there is an assumption that hacking took place.
The Judge uses lots of words like 'may' and 'probable'.
Although presented as a win, Harry only won partly, and the compensation was less than offered as an out of court settlement.

Forget Harry,

Sorry to disappoint, but Harry joining this fight is what has got it this far. It's sad so may others couldn't take it all the way and had to settle. The media that are reporting on this have all congratulated him and given him due credit for it. So will we, despite protests for us to stop.

Yes, Harry wasn't interested in a settlement, thank god! Otherwise the Met Police may not now be looking at this. Try as hard as you like, winning on almost half is a huge success and is being seen that way by most. I am well aware about the difference between civil and criminal, thanks. As we have been discussing the possibility of a proper criminal investigation after this. MGN were not able to show any legitimate sources for the private information. I mean, I hope you're not suggesting this judge got it wrong?!

we all know the yee ha'ing is more due to the tedious old Bitter Harold v the UK/the rf ongoing circus

BS. You don't speak for me. Having read a lot about other claimants in this case and the upcoming one, and what they went through, nothing could be further from the truth. It might suit your agenda to say that of course.

'The Judge uses lots of words like 'may' and 'probable'.'

Crazy isn't it. Who knew criminal cases needed hard evidence whereas civil ones could have lots of 'may' in the decision.

At least Fancourt bless him decided the broken thumb story wasn't hacking as it had been reported by another publication the day before.

You obviously don't think much of the Judge. What a patronising post.

I was watching Sky News when the judgement was being read out and they had a lawyer on who was involved in Leveson or early days of hacking, and he talked about how he had been threatened by the media before, and others who have been involved, as witnesses, claimants or lawyers, have all had their reputations, reliability and character attacked over these cases too. So while unpleasant I am not surprised the Judge is getting it too.

I think there was no evidence of hacking, MGN wouldn't have paid out over £100 million already to settle claims, before this trial. If they could defend and prove where they got information through legitimate means, they would have. Considering Reach plc, who own MGN, is apparently worth £250 million, paying out that much is significant.

Of course there will be evidence I don't dispute that my point was words like 'may' and 'probable' aren't words you'd expect to hear in court regarding decisions.

Civil cases rest on the balance of probabilities. It's aim to find a way to redress a wrong.

Criminal cases rest on beyond reasonable doubt. Its aim is to punish wrongdoing. This was established in the 18th century.

What utter nonsense.

Perhaps you need to spend a bit more time in court?

'Utter nonsense'. 'BS' from the op. Such nice attitudes.

You do know this is a chat forum, a place for sharing thoughts and opinion?

My opinion is 'may' and 'probable' aren't words you'd expect to hear in such a high profile case.

@Janiie My opinion is 'may' and 'probable' aren't words you'd expect to hear in such a high profile case.

Your original post attempted to make a statement of fact, not present an opinion.

You are plain wrong. Can we move on?

"My opinion is 'may' and 'probable' aren't words you'd expect to hear in such a high profile case."

As I explained its basis is that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. It's higher for crime because criminal cases carry the threat of limiting a citizen's liberty.
Please do look up a few more civil case judgements before suggesting there is anything odd or unusual occurring.

So now the Judge is using words we shouldn't expect to hear in court... yes, lets move on from criticising the judge!

I wonder if other defendants will seek to settle now?

Yes please do. Perhaps it would help to move on if you stopped quoting me?

Good King Harry is the right hashtag

Harry won £140K but was offered £200K by MGN initially to save going to trial. I wonder if this was part of a Part 36 offer which has strings attached, namely that if the claimant wins in court but the sum awarded is less than the P36 offer they are liable to the costs of the other side (defendant)?

Interesting if this is the case as the victory is a hollow one for the winner. I wonder if it can be disclosed one way or the other? Maybe a legal person can say?

I don't think it's about the money for Harry, more the vindication, but also a lot about the treatment he feels was unfairly given to his wife. One way or the other it's a money pit.

Harry won £140K but was offered £200K by MGN initially to save going to trial

Incorrect. The offer was made a few months ago, after trial.

The balance of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. A simple google could have told you that Janiie. 😊

hollow😂😂😂

The judgement

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/3217.html

Thanks Cakester, but they know where it is.

They just prefer extracts from the Fail and other useless gutter journalisms.

Sad, bitter and pitiful.

I knew Tim Fancourt well when we were juniors, I instructed him on a lot of cases and have been to trial with him. Our area of expertise - which is not media, privacy or defamation law, but nevertheless a highly technical discipline - takes a meticulous mind. He's incredibly bright, measured and fair.

I do think people should make an attempt to read the judgment. Harry's rather ill advised and grandiose statement outside court is covering for a lot of clear exasperation on the part of the judge, for his representation's ill thought out and badly pleaded and evidenced heads of claim. My DH and I are litigation solicitors of 30+ years' experience, and we both agreed we'd be utterly embarrassed to have the judge have to sift through and cross reference our evidence for us, because it was so poorly presented; never mind that some of the claims were just plainly and provably without evidence of hacking or illegal information gathering. If his best claims were put forward in the 33 that were tried, I wonder what the other claims consisted of.

Harry was undoubtedly the victim of phone hacking and illegal information gathering, and that was utterly wrong. However, given his family's involvement previously in the matter of phone hacking, I don't understand why he thinks he's a dragon slayer or any other sort of hero. Personal vindication is something that, yes perhaps, was more important for him than anything else, but only up to a certain point given what the judge has said about the evidence, and certainly not what the court system is designed for, as his unfortunate co-claimants are going to find out to their cost. Rich people, who can afford a substantial costs penalty, waging their vendettas and ignoring the Civil Procedure Rules is the height of entitlement. Given the paucity of evidence, both in substance and presentation, I would expect Harry to carry a substantial costs burden (and that's before consideration of any Part 36 offers that were tabled).

@Iamalawyer I believe there were over 100 claims put forward, most dismissed by the judge. Some incidents related to incidents in South Africa and (I think) Australia or America. Obviously dismissed out of hand as 'out of this jurisdiction'.

If a part 36 was offered with the initial offer of £200K, will we here about it?