Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry v. NGN

1000 replies

Atlasvue · 19/01/2025 10:02

Starting a thread for Tuesday.
This BBC article covers the basics. This is the last line ….
Tuesday really is the beginning of the end. And someone is going to lose - and lose big.

I have a feeling, that Harry won’t win but he just wants to use the public setting to air his grievances. A therapy session would have worked out much cheaper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l00xkgwnyo

Prince Harry leaves the court during his hacking case against the Daily Mirror. He wears a dark coloured suit, white shirt and tie. His barrister David Sherborne, also dressed in a dark suit is on his left.  A crowd of photographers are behind a metal...

Prince Harry versus newspapers: This is the one that matters

Prince Harry’s legal battle against British tabloids for allegedly unlawfully intruding into his life reaches its most important moment on Tuesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l00xkgwnyo

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Cublaca · 22/01/2025 19:43

I think the only winners here were David Sherebourne and the NGN lawyers.

And why is everyone assuming that Harry[s settlement must be higher than Hugh Grant? And that he is richer?

Grant has been a movie star for 30 years, and he had his prime when the paychecks were bigger. Considering his achievements and the fact that he seems a smart guy, I bet he has a fortune tucked away. And the circumstances of his settlement are private.

veraswaistcoat · 22/01/2025 19:44

Regardless of all the wins v losses or monetary amount this whole thing will resonate to people and companies - " don't get hooked up with those two. They are trouble" . It isn't a good look for someone who needs contacts to make money for personal or Invictus gains.

EdithWeston · 22/01/2025 19:45

RoyalCorgi · 22/01/2025 14:00

Absolutely. Apart from which, this has benefited all the people who couldn't afford to make a claim against NGN. Now that the company has admitted to illegal activity, they can at least feel vindicated and they may even have the opportunity to make their own claims without an expensive legal battle.

So the public enquiry, the criminal convictions and all the other settlements meant nothing?

Just this one settlement amongst scores of others, and an apology that only covered ground covered in those other cases.

I think that can only be true if you assume that other victims were not paying attention to all those other cases and the main enquiry. I do not share that assumption - I think those touched directly by those activities were very much engaged with news coverage.

IcedPurple · 22/01/2025 19:50

PrincessofWells · 22/01/2025 19:34

I think you'll find the other side paid all his legal fees in full.

I think you'll find that out of court settlements are confidential and that any claims you read are simply speculation.

Who would have an interest in putting out the rumour that Harry got a huge settlement and had all his legal bills paid? Maybe the same folk who claimed he and his wife got a 9 figure sum from Netflix, a figure now confirmed to be false?

I don't doubt he got a substantial amount, but anyone who claims to know the details is just repeating rumours.

Serenster · 22/01/2025 19:52

Now that the company has admitted to illegal activity, they can at least feel vindicated and they may even have the opportunity to make their own claims without an expensive legal battle.

Any new claims would relate to pre-2011 conduct and so would now be out of time. One of the defences that NGN was going to run had this case not settled, was that Harry’s claims were out of time.

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 22/01/2025 19:55

Long time retired @Serenster
would that apply to criminal prosecution? If it could be proven?

Partybagprick · 22/01/2025 19:55

Now that the company has admitted to illegal activity, they can at least feel vindicated and they may even have the opportunity to make their own claims without an expensive legal battle.

They have only admitted to illegal activity wrt Prince Harry for the specific circumstances of his case (same for Tom Watson). The others will have to prove their own allegations as true on a balance of probabilities.

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 19:59

PrincessofWells · 22/01/2025 19:41

More than a few extra pounds. Murdoch was desperate for this not to go to trial. It would have oppened a Pandoras Box.

Then Harry should have proceeded with the trial then shouldn’t he? If it would open a Pandora’s box for Murdoch……but wait….oh yeh, he folded.

OP posts:
Partybagprick · 22/01/2025 20:01

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 22/01/2025 19:55

Long time retired @Serenster
would that apply to criminal prosecution? If it could be proven?

There is no limitation on indictable offences, which phone hacking would be (given the sentences meted out in the past).

Didn't Watson say outside court he is handing a folder of info to the police (only after he's been able to leverage his own settlement).

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2025 20:01

What other cases remain and when are they scheduled to be heard ?

Lampzade · 22/01/2025 20:06

Congratulations to Harry
He took on the Murdoch press and won
He got the apology he wanted .
It was never about the money, it was about holding Murdoch et al to account .
He did not sell his soul for favourable press like other senior royals
His mother and grandmother would be extremely proud of him

Serenster · 22/01/2025 20:06

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 22/01/2025 19:55

Long time retired @Serenster
would that apply to criminal prosecution? If it could be proven?

No, criminal prosecutions would not be out of time, but you run across the public interest arguments that I mentioned early in the thread.

This is all historic misconduct, there have been many police investigations, at least 8 or 9 people charged and tried and three or four convictions. Plus a public enquiry that specifically looked into these issue. Any further prosecutions would not be for deterrent value, as this behaviour is no longer taking place. So why would it be in the public interest to investigate further, especially when all you have is allegations that the civil burden of proof can be met here (which, obviously is a lesser standard than the criminal standard).

I’m also side-eying Tom Watson for his comment that he’ll be passing a “dossier’ to the Met Police. That will presumably be made up of documents he gained via the civil disclosure process. The Civil Procedure Rules provide that you can’t use documents obtained as part of disclosure for any other purpose - which includes handing them over to the police. So the Court would have to make an order allowing them to be handed to the Met.

Still, it’s a good tub-thumping soundbite, isn’t it…

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 20:06

Telegraph

https://archive.ph/4JB0D:

‘But can the Duke claim that, as hoped, he has changed the media landscape with his crusade? Not quite.
In this regard, it is not what was said in NGN’s “full and unequivocal apology” that is key, but what was missing.
There is no admission of phone hacking, surveillance or misuse of private information at the Sun; just the News of the World, which closed more than a decade ago. Admissions of “unlawful activity” are confined to private investigators, with no executive heads rolling, no forensic examination of any cover-up, and no airing of new details of the “serious intrusion” that NGN admits to.
As such, one wonders how quickly the elation of the personal victory may, behind the scenes as the adrenaline wears off, give way to deflation for the man who has called holding the British press to account his “life’s work”.

Having set himself up as a champion of the voiceless (“I’ve been told that slaying dragons will get you burned,” he cried poetically, after a legal victory last year), Prince Harry now finds himself – in terms of taking the stand – back among them.
His quest to bring down part of the Murdoch empire has ended in a fizzle rather than a bang.

What could have persuaded the Duke to stop at this stage?
The decision will inevitably raise questions about his finances – the settlement was an eight-figure sum, we are told. While other celebrities and civilians settled, with some saying they could not afford to pay the legal fees, Prince Harry planned to be the one who saw it through, with money as no object.
It is not clear to what extent his settlement is materially or morally different to the one he told the world his elder brother had made, with 2023 court papers claiming Prince William “has recently settled his claim against NGN behind the scenes”. One brother did so in private, and the other in public.
There will be question marks, too, about whether someone finally convinced Harry, a family man who is forging a new life on another continent, that his energies might be better spent elsewhere.
The cost, both financially and mentally – as he relived his unhappy younger years – was huge, and the rift with his family significant, as his legal battles came to play a “central piece” in this, he said previously.
The settlement comes at a strange time for the Sussexes: Meghan’s Netflix show postponed after the Los Angeles fires, a blistering Vanity Fair cover story about their alleged failings, and questions over their professional futures.
Their Spotify deal has ended, though not before Harry’s more embarrassing ideas – a podcast inviting famous guests to talk about why they, not him, were sociopaths, no less – had made their way into the public domain.
His Netflix show about Polo did not generate the buzz it might have expected, his bestselling memoir is long done and dusted, and his relations with the Royal family remain on a scale between strained and non-existent.
He is preoccupied with the ongoing issue of security in Britain (note a line in his barrister’s statement, alleging that the press coverage since he began his legal claim had “created serious concerns for the security of him and his family”), and may want to concentrate his energies on progressing this through the courts.

Last year, a reputable US magazine – whose report has never been contested by the Sussexes’ team – recorded that the Duchess of Sussex wished Harry “could let go of these lawsuits” and “live in the moment”, wanting him to be “free of all of this” despite understanding that “his love” for her and their children meant he could not.‘

OP posts:
Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 20:08

Lampzade · 22/01/2025 20:06

Congratulations to Harry
He took on the Murdoch press and won
He got the apology he wanted .
It was never about the money, it was about holding Murdoch et al to account .
He did not sell his soul for favourable press like other senior royals
His mother and grandmother would be extremely proud of him

He never got the apology he wanted- he got the one he accepted for money.

The telegraph:

There is no admission of phone hacking, surveillance or misuse of private information at the Sun; just the News of the World, which closed more than a decade ago. Admissions of “unlawful activity” are confined to private investigators, with no executive heads rolling, no forensic examination of any cover-up, and no airing of new details of the “serious intrusion” that NGN admits to.

OP posts:
Lampzade · 22/01/2025 20:11

He won. It is simple as that

Sunholidays · 22/01/2025 20:14

Harry himself said: "If you’re forced to settle, there is no justice… one of the main reasons I’m seeing this through, is accountability because I’m the last person that can actually achieve that and also closure for these 1,300 victims and families"

He's pathetic and a coward.

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 20:15

Lampzade · 22/01/2025 20:11

He won. It is simple as that

He didn’t go to trial. There’s no win. He folded and accepted cash from Murdochs pocket to keep silent.

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 20:18

If the settlement was extremely large which it is reported to be, he is unlikely to be able to afford all the costs even of he won. He is very well off, but not a billionaire.

PrincessofWells · 22/01/2025 20:18

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 19:59

Then Harry should have proceeded with the trial then shouldn’t he? If it would open a Pandora’s box for Murdoch……but wait….oh yeh, he folded.

No. The majority of cases are settled before trial, a significant amount of those on the court steps, because there is nothing further to be achieved once you have what you wanted.

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 22/01/2025 20:19

Lampzade · 22/01/2025 20:06

Congratulations to Harry
He took on the Murdoch press and won
He got the apology he wanted .
It was never about the money, it was about holding Murdoch et al to account .
He did not sell his soul for favourable press like other senior royals
His mother and grandmother would be extremely proud of him

I’m not so sure @Lampzade
he didn’t have his day in court like he wanted. A settlement is not a win unless you are a lawyer. All those hours preparing for trial..

I think (obviously I don’t know) he could have had the same apology a while back. It wasn’t a proper acknowledgement of wrongdoing imo. Which it should have been - seriously blaming PI’s who they hired? Disgusting.

I honestly think there is something else behind him settling now as it’s out of character.

and as for selling his soul like other royals - well he’s done that with Oprah and Netflix already. But then opinions vary! Discussion forums would be boring otherwise.

JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 20:21

@WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout you do understand that if the settlement was as enormous as reported to be, Harry is unlikely to be able to meet both sides costs if he won as he would have to. He could have win in court but had to pay say 20 million in the other sides costs.

Sunholidays · 22/01/2025 20:21

PrincessofWells · 22/01/2025 20:18

No. The majority of cases are settled before trial, a significant amount of those on the court steps, because there is nothing further to be achieved once you have what you wanted.

Yeah but he didn't get what he wanted. How many dragons were slayed? where is the accountability?

The Sun will be in the newsagents tomorrow and the Murdoch people still have their jobs.

At least William closed The News of the World, good riddance.

Atlasvue · 22/01/2025 20:22

PrincessofWells · 22/01/2025 20:18

No. The majority of cases are settled before trial, a significant amount of those on the court steps, because there is nothing further to be achieved once you have what you wanted.

Uh huh but Harry wasn’t going to do that remember? He was going to fight in for all those people that couldn’t. He was on a stage when he said that. He was going to fight on in the name of justice and accountability

in the name of money more like

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 22/01/2025 20:23

William did not close News of the World. Do not talk rot

StartupRepair · 22/01/2025 20:24

A few thoughts.
What a happy day it was for David Sherborne when he met an angry and not very bright prince over a drink at Elton's.
Surely everyone already knew that tabloids did dreadful things in the 90s and early 2000s. Has Harry s case done anything to add to what was already public knowledge of this era?
Harry published Kate's personal text messages in Spare. How does he square this betrayal of a formerly loved sister-in-law with his righteous crusade for privacy?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.