The Times, list of Harry’s 33 claims.

[themessygarden]

This report gives a summary of the 15 claims he won and the 18 he lost. Of the 15 he won a lot are related to Chelsey, so just as likely it was her phone hacked to get info on Harry. I wonder why she didn’t join this case? Hopefully it’s because she has already settled, or I wonder if an NDA would preclude her from joining the case.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-claims-phone-hacking-case-mirror-newspapers-0fk20lpvm

(horrible photos of all 3 of them)

https://archive.is/LZQfN

this is the readable version, the other one is behind a paywall.

I don’t think I can add the archived version

I thought the Chelsey car tracker was by far the strongest example, and truly awful conduct.

The trial considered a sample of 33, of which 15 were found to be the result of unlawful activity.
1: Diana so sad on Harry’s big day
Daily Mirror, September 16, 1996. Article was the day after Harry’s 12th birthday and before the duke even had a mobile phone. Harry lost

2: Princes take to the hills for gala
Daily Mirror, July 17, 2000. Judge: “Unclear whether any of the content could be considered private in view of previous publicity.” Harry lost

3: Harry’s time at the bar
Daily Mirror, September 19, 2000. Judge: Pizza restaurant with friends for 16th birthday so “doubtful that duke could establish a reasonable expectation of privacy”. Harry lost

4: Snap … Harry breaks thumb like William
Daily Mirror, November 11, 2000. Judge: Harry’s claim was “hopeless” as content was released by St James’s Palace in a media briefing. Harry lost

5: Rugger Off, Harry
Sunday Mirror, November 11, 2001. Judge: News about rugby injury is the “sort of information that a 17-year-old keen sportsman would be likely to share with his schoolmates”. Harry lost

R6 & 7: Harry took drugs and Harry’s cocaine, Ecstasy and GHB parties
Sunday Mirror, January 13, 2002 and Daily Mirror January 14, 2002. Judge: Voicemail interception “of the Duke’s associates probably took place, though not of the Duke himself”. Harry won
8: Harry’s sick with the ‘kissing disease’
Daily Mirror, March 29, 2002. Judge: “Seems likely that it was [St James’s] Palace spokeswoman who first put the information into the public domain.” Harry lost
9: No Eton Trifles for Harry, 18
Daily Mirror, September 16, 2002. Judge: “Information the duke provided to the Press Association in an interview to mark his 18th birthday.” Harry lost
10: Matured Harry is a godfather
Sunday People, April 20, 2003. Judge: “Obvious from the phraseology” that The Daily Telegraph’s Mandrake column was the source. Harry lost

11: Harry to lead cadets’ march
Daily Mirror, April 29, 2003. Judge: Harry accepted the article “was no more than a composite version of the Palace announcement and the Press Association report”. Harry lost
12: Harry is ready to quit Oz
Daily Mirror, September 27, 2003. Judge: Harry’s claim is “hopeless” as the source was the Palace briefing Harry’s “own companion in Australia”. Harry lost
13: Beach bum Harry
Daily Mirror, December 16, 2003. Judge: Information from a freelance photographer in Australia. Harry lost
14: Wills: Seeing Burrell is only way to stop him selling more Diana secrets. Harry: No … Burrell’s a two-faced s* who’ll use visit to make money
Sunday People, December 28, 2003. Judge: Information was obtained by hacking “of messages between the Duke and his brother or other associates”. Harry won
15: Harry is a Chelsy fan
Daily Mirror, November 29, 2004. Judge: Chelsy Davy’s identity obtained from private investigators commissioned “to blag flight information, credit card details or phone billing data”. Harry won

I see the archived version has been added now

Thanks, @themessygarden . Interesting. I'm also horrified by what happened to Chelsey.

Hopefully Chelsey settled out of court long ago and has put this all behind her. I also hope Harry got her permission to drag all this up in his own crusade. Very unfair if he didn't. The judge said Harry's UIG was modest and I think this is true. Far more people were impacted worse than him, but his high profile is at least shedding light on the issue again. The perpetrators look to be getting away with most of this though and I think the expense of a second Levinson enquiry is deterring the government, not to mention the power of the media magnates. A very sad state of affairs for the public.

i too hope Chelsey has settled, rather than being unable to join the case for legal reasons, or because she didn’t want the resurgence of public interest.

Now the pivot is.. Poor chelsey, except if she really didn’t want this court action to go through.. she could’ve attempted to get an injuction.

Poor woman, she was stalked for years and spied on. No wonder she bolted.

I hope her settlement was over the top generous.

I was copying from the times article, it is in chronological order from the article. I didn’t copy the remainder of the article when I saw my post with the link was reinstated.

no conspiracy. 🙂 unless the Times newspaper is a bot

actually he was allowed put forward 33 not 15, he was proven on 15 and lost 18.

she could’ve attempted to get an injuction.

😂😂😂

Here is a share token for the original article.

It says that out of 148 articles, 33 were considered as a sample. Harry won on 15 of the 33.

I wonder how the 33 were chosen, i.e. were they the articles Harry and his team considered to have the best chance of winning, or were they selected at random?

On the face of it, some of the articles look a bit of an unusual choice if selected by Harry and his team (taking the first one on the Times report as an example).

I also agree that it definitely reads as being Chelsea Davy who was hacked/the victim of UIG in order to get material for these stories. I hope she has been or will be compensated too.

Ah, so I've read the judgment now, which answered my own question. Both sides had to agree on which articles would be in the sample of 33.

I would imagine Harry’s team put forward the ones they thought most likely to win, whereas the Mirror Group put forward the ones they thought they had the best chance of defending. The almost 50/50 win/loss ratio makes sense.

Chelsy has moved on, married and has a young child. She has never given interviews or appeared on TV shows although I'm sure she had plenty offers. Can completely understand her not wanting to get caught up in "Harry and Meghan: The Courtroom Years" tv drama, with every word she said recorded for Netflix.

Well played, Chelsy.

Thank you for the share token. The agreement for the sample cases makes sense, it is closer to a 60/40 lose-win.

I imagine some of the ones he lost could be wins for him in the next case.

I am surprised to see they put forward so many that were easily knocked down. I think that's a shame. Am glad they won the ones they did. It's obvious what was going on here and it's wretched. I just think losing so many makes it easier for people to dismiss the very real hacking as paranoia.

No one believes it's paranoia. Levinson proved that. Phone hacking is minimal because phone hacking is almost impossible. The reason phones were hacked way back was mainly because the default code was something like 1 2 3 4, and no one bothered to change it! So all hackers needed was the phone number and used the default code.

There's so much opportunity nowadays to gather information via 'friends', social media and so on.

Yes, well played Chelsy indeed- she dodged a bullet there.

Point 14 is hilarious as that's exactly what Harry does!!

He's got so little self awareness. No notion of invading other people's privacy at all. Extraordinary.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/prince-harry-dominic-west-the-crown-b2469964.html

Apparently he cut off Dominic West for breaching his privacy...