Harry’s litigation

[smilesy]

Harry has been mostly denied permission to increase the scope of his case against NGN. The judge has, quite rightly, allowed him to include new allegations of phone tapping and other accusations against private investigators and journalists. What he has not allowed is Harry to extend the timeline to include allegations around Diana or Meghan when she was his girlfriend. The judge also made disparaging remarks about Harry’s lawyers adding more and more detail, and going for “trophy targets”

Is Harry losing sight of what legal action should be for and becoming vexatious?

Oops meant to add this from the BBCloses bid to include Murdoch in hacking claim www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggk2erkkvo See here

It’s going to take me time to process, the Princess Diana part.

I find it difficult to work out what he is doing with this. I'm confused by all the court cases but why would he want to add in Diana stuff? It comes across in the article as him trying to get revenge for anything that has ever been written about him or anyone near him.

I wish the judge had allowed them to include specific allegations against Murdoch. Its clear that NGN is rotten to the core and Murdoch is the source of that

Harry is mentally unwell. He really needs the right kind of support around him, which he doesn’t currently have sadly. I think it will all end tragically.

Agree but you need to bring the case against Murdoch, not a fishing exercise

I think as he’s had limited success here he is now piling everything on in the hope of a major win. He is an unmitigated twat of rhe highest order.

In the ideal world this would be a criminal case, with consequences for wrong doing. Harry wants justice and the courts just want to settle the dispute. I dread to think what is cost financial and mentally will be after he’s finished.

Which part of the judgement do you think is legally unsound?

Simply being 'rotten' isn't grounds for legal action.

I agree with this.

Harry is never going to get the outcome he wants from this.

I don't understand why Diana was brought into it?

I don't understand why Diana was brought into it?

Throw everything at it in the hope that something will stick and he gets the resolution he wants. His lawyers must be rubbing their hands. More court, more fees....

Or he genuinely wants to punish the press somehow for what happened to Diana (which obviously isn't going to happen). I think he risks losing any credibility he had if he carries on trying to throw the kitchen sink at these lawsuits. He seems to think that righteous indignation is enough to bring a case against someone 🤷‍♀️

He also seems to think that 'because I say so' is evidence.

"Prince Harry turned down an invite from his father to stay at a royal residence earlier this month because of security fears, the Telegraph understands. If he loses his High Court appeal later this year, it's hard to see how this stalemate will be resolved".

“The Duke remains devastated about the withdrawal of his right to automatic police protection, which has become one of the biggest barriers to reconciliation with his father.”

The Duke sounds petulant and somewhat delusional frankly.

How can he say the protection at the King's Royal residence is inadequate? IMO he wanted Camilla not to be present and wanted to be able to film. And was told No to both.

twitter.com/victoria_ward/status/1792964034263744578?t=RxhJwmVhcLm5wMF6ND3Hgg&s=19

Petulant and delusional sound about right! It's frankly ridiculous that he's trying to link the security issue to seeing his father, particularly when he's turning down offers to stay in royal residences (which will be far more secure and better protected than a hotel) and jetting off to places like Nigeria without a care in the world.

Does he believe his own lies I wonder? Does he really expect other people not to see right through it?

I don't think the BBC link is working but regardless just thinking about Harold's numerous court cases give me a headache.

Dread to think what effect it has on him but I can't help wondering if the lack of freakish attention to detail in keeping Archewell documents on track is an indication.

“The Duke remains devastated about the withdrawal of his right to automatic police protection, which has become one of the biggest barriers to reconciliation with his father.”

Harry’s judicial review against the Home Office revealed that he never had a right to automatic police protection. It was always at the discretion of RAVEC. Victoria Ward falling down on her fact-checking there.

I assumed that was a quote from Harry or a spokesperson rather than a statement from the journalist? Although I can't see the original article to check against

I would guess she is quoting whichever of Harry’s team talked to her. As Ravec would say: Recollections May Vary. Harry would have lost his protection as time went on anyway. None of the Kings siblings have protection outside of when they are working and obviously living on royal property.

But the duke was granted permission to alter his case to include allegations the papers had tapped his landline phones, and to make further accusations against journalists and private investigators.

I had thought it was already decided that we would be seeing Rupert Murdoch as a witness. What a shame.

But the sentence from the BBC report (that I’ve bolded above) seems to indicate Harry’s lawyers have been able to expand the case in other ways.

Not to worry, we’ll be seeing Murdoch’s son James, and Rebecca Brooks.

Guardian Harry, Dame Lawrence etc., case against NGN

“Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that some of the requested amendments could be made, including a number relating to allegations that senior executives at NGN lied to the Leveson inquiry and concealed and destroyed evidence. Harry was allowed to make some changes to his individual case but could not introduce new allegations from 1994, 1995 and 2016 or new allegations of phone hacking”

”In the March hearing, Harry and other claimants sought to point the finger of blame directly at Murdoch, arguing that the 93-year-old billionaire had “turned a blind eye” to an extensive cover-up of wrongdoing at his newspapers and overseen a “culture of impunity” at NGN, which was also the publisher of the now defunct News of the World.

At a hearing at the high court in London on Tuesday, Fancourt ruled that the individual allegations against Murdoch and some other senior executives should not be examined in the trial, as there were “already allegations pleaded against Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, who are his trusted lieutenants”.

“Fancourt said: “Tempting though it no doubt is for the claimants’ team to attempt to inculpate the man at the very top, doing so will add nothing to a finding that Ms Brooks and Mr James Murdoch or other senior executives knew and were involved, if that is proved to be the case.”

And so on.

There are 40 other claimants in this case.

Sorry, @CathyorClaire , I really messed up that link. It does work if you click on the text, but here it is again just in case

Well, Harry doesn’t have a lot to do so being a professional litigant and all-round Angry Man is something to occupy his time.

https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/vexatious-litigants/

Would be a bit of an irony if the son of the monarch in whose name the courts operate became banned from initiating legal action due to the number of his claims.

Harry just seems consumed with bitterness - against his family, against the press because of Diana, against pretty much everything in the UK. He's no advert for therapy.

I think Harry’s behaviour since flouncing off shows just how much he was protected by the Men in Suits and other members of the RF. How much his image was managed.