Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

I don't think we're done talking - and I never start threads!

As you were!

Looks like the Sun case settlement is nothing next to the DM case coming up. Judge admits there’s unlikely to be a settlement. Proposed costs running at £38 million but judges have said £8 million is reasonable

Claimants want £216,000 to settle. DM says they are not settling.

The Sun were happy to pay claimants the cash they wanted, but the DM aren’t budging.

https://archive.ph/Fvxdg

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/01/24/duke-of-sussex-associated-newspapers-legal-costs-excessive/

Yes

Right...

I do hope everyone eventually realises what an important case the case against NGN was. And how important it is to reform how the media act.

Let's see. Running the case would arguably have brought more information into the public domain, but money ended up winning the day for all of the appellants, so we may never know...

I think that particular horse has bolted anyway. To me, social media is more of an issue these days.

I agree social media is an issue. But you are wrong to think how the media treat innocent victims is no longer an issue.

I didn't say that how the media treats innocent victims isn't an issue; I said that social media is now a bigger issue!

Which is why some governments are starting to enact laws on social media.
Both social media and how journalists behave, are an issue.

OOh, I actually know that one!

So (bear with me), Rebekah Brooks used to be married to Ross Kemp. Ross Kemp worked for a long time with Babs Windsor, who was a friend of the Krays in their heyday in the East End of London. They ran a very popular club that she and other stars used to frequent in the 50s and 60s.

One night in 1963 (keep up) the Krays met Princess Margaret at the film premiere of Sparrows Can't Sing, starring Babs Windsor. Afterwards the cast went on to the 'after party' at the Krays' nightclub, but Princess Margaret declined the invitation from Babs, Ronnie and Reggie to attend.

The Krays felt snubbed, and their close associates knew as much.

Plucky Babs knew what she had to do.

NGN for the first time admitted illegality.

As has been pointed out repeatedly here, no illegality was admitted.

I condemn William for settling.

So a future king should have gone through a circus of a court case, for the same monetary reward he'd have got through a private settlement? Minus the massive legal costs?

Even though the overwhelming majority of claimants in such cases, including those who have made a big deal out of changing the media landscape such as Hugh Grant and of course Hero Harry, have done the same thing?

But I do wonder at the hypocrisy of those people who so objected to William being criticised for settling now having a go at Harry for the same thing.

That's a distortion of people's positions.

Nobody is 'having a go' at Harry for settling in and of itself. Not one person that I have seen. Settling as I said above, is by far the preferred way to deal with civil cases. What people are saying is that, only last month Harry was grandstanding about how he was going to stand up for all those little people who couldn't afford to go all the way and seek 'accountability' through the courts. At the last minute, he chose to settle. Which in itself is perfectly fine and reasonable, but a total turnaround from his recent, publicly declared position.

I would say the only person here criticising Harry for settling is you, because presumably you can't 'condemn' William for settling and not do the same for Harry?

Indeed, NGN pushed back hard on this in its own statement of apology.

They are also pushing back in an (under-reported) fashion against the post-settlement statements made by or on behalf of the claimants and others.

See, for example, the closing paras of this Guardian article.

A spokesperson for NGN said: “It must also be stressed that allegations that were being made publicly pre-trial (and indeed post-settlement) that News International destroyed evidence in 2010-11 would have been the subject of significant challenge at trial.

“These allegations were and continue to be strongly denied. Extensive evidence would have been called in trial to rebut these allegations from senior staff from technology and legal.”

I think the Mail (AN) are planning to rebut similar allegations in court, if and when the time comes.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/24/police-request-transcripts-from-prince-harry-case-against-owner-of-the-sun

I really think it is out of order for Sherbourne to try to litigate the matter (and lie) in a post settlement statement. I hope he's reported to the Bar Council for this conduct.

One maxim that I always live by is never trust a man with excessively bouffanty hair

Whatever opinions are held about Harry & Meghan which tend to be polarising, looking just at this legal action, those views are legally irrelevant, but it's difficult to see how this is not a overwhelming "civil case" victory for Harry.
Whilst the part 36 offer in such claims can be weaponised by corporates to intimidate individual claimants fearing bankruptcy, the key element is that NGN fully accepted civil liability. Once they've done this, it's just about the level of damages & seemingly Harry would have got everything he said he wanted at the point of disclosure (e.g. 6 months ago) I.e. more money than hed have likely been awarded, apologies & admissions he wouldn't have received if NGN had not accepted liability & the case was heard.
Once liability has been accepted, the trial or questioning of wrongdoing is over, - judge would say "theyve already accepted liability, why are you asking?" then if all the demands are met by the plaintiff, & a deal at the last minute suggests NGN capitulated & Harry got everything he wanted, the case is settled.
However, the only way NGN executives will ever be held properly to account is through the criminal courts - the civil courts is as far as Harry can take it but as many may hope, the prepared case - files, witness statements & evidence have all new been forwarded to the police / CPS.
If there is sufficient evidence (& its a higher bar) then it's more likely that we see a trial to satisfy the cravings of those who have polar views of H&M (either pole), but those execs could again accept responsibility, i.e. plead guilty - and then no entertaining/performative trial again. But in such an instance, make no mistake, Harry or more accurately the state vs NGN execs would have won - even if the punishment (maybe too short a sentence/fines) might not satiate some appetites.
Harry might not have everything he wants yet, he's not won the war but he's definitely had a huge battle victory.

Yeah ... okay ...

@Daddybegood Well said

@smilesy words to live by

Now you've made me think of Michael Fabricant's syrup.

NGN capitulated & Harry got everything he wanted, the case is settled.

NGN wanted to settle. Harry wanted to go to court.

Harry scorned people that settled and wanted to 'slay the dragons'

He waved a white flag.

Now.
I think Harry should have settled, I'm glad he has got damages and an apology. But it is disingenuous to say Harry got everything he wanted.

From the Telegraph: "A costs management hearing allows the court to set “reasonable and proportionate” parameters for the costs of the litigation. Either side can exceed the budget but would then be unable to recover the full amount if the other party was ordered to pay their costs"

Thanks for linking that article, @Atlasvue; this really isn't my world and I had no idea such a thing existed, so have learned something there

However, the only way NGN executives will ever be held properly to account is through the criminal courts - the civil courts is as far as Harry can take it but as many may hope, the prepared case - files, witness statements & evidence have all new been forwarded to the police / CPS.

There hasn't been a civil trial. There have been no admissions of liability. No documentary evidence provided by the defendants was made public because there was no public trial. There are rules of evidence around attempting to use documents obtained in the course of a civil case that have not been made public for a subsequent criminal case. It not a simple case of just handing over a file. Harry's team may hand over their documents to the CPS and release their use, but they can't do this for NGN's.

There were criminal trials over the last 20 years both before and after Leveson, including a trial of Rebekah Brookes, the main scalp at NGN, who was acquitted. I don't doubt that she's a slippery character who perhaps was not as innocent as she made herself out to be. However, re-trying her after she's already been acquitted will involve getting around the rules on double jeopardy and the public interest principle in re-trying an old case.

It's been alleged that Surrey Police, the Met Police and Mercia Police covered up their knowledge of phone hacking (first observed in 1999) to keep the press on their side. I'd like to see some accountability for whoever was involved in that.

It's been alleged that Surrey Police, the Met Police and Mercia Police covered up their knowledge of phone hacking (first observed in 1999) to keep the press on their side. I'd like to see some accountability for whoever was involved in that.

I think it was a huge and tragic mistake by Theresa May (PM) and Matt Hancock (Culture Secretary) to pull the rug from Leveson II, given that was scheduled to look at issues such as potential criminal dealing between the media and the police, @FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger. And on costs grounds, ffs.

As for Rebekah 'clean ship' Brooks, I suppose perjury charges are possible?

Your last point is certainly valid. If the Al Fayed case taught us anything, it's that these people already have people in high places on side, & in some cases were complicit $$$ in wrongdoing.

However, the case prepared against NGN I believe included statements from those who committed such wrongdoing ,(who served time), who are now supportive of Harry's case....which would be convincing evidence if a criminal case was brought

In terms of handing over docs, evidence, statements etc I would imagine these came entirely from Harry's claimant. NGN's initial statements at the point of disclosure, would likely not have included any of the execs by name & continued to claim ignorence of what investigators were doing - they would have been happier paying out damages/court costs & grovelling apologies etc at the expense of their shareholders / legal egos, but would have been very aware that the bigger scalp of criminal executive responsibility is ultimately what they really want to avoid.

But whilst NGN's defence in this case will likely provide little ammo; unless NGN have clearly denoted "without prejuduce" then its usable in a case against them - but if it was "without prejuduce: then it would also have been inadmissible in the civil courts

In terms of handing over docs, evidence, statements etc I would imagine these came entirely from Harry's claimant. NGN's initial statements at the point of disclosure, would likely not have included any of the execs by name & continued to claim ignorence of what investigators were doing

I don't really understand what you are saying here.

But whilst NGN's defence in this case will likely provide little ammo; unless NGN have clearly denoted "without prejuduce" then its usable in a case against them - but if it was "without prejuduce: then it would also have been inadmissible in the civil courts

No, that's not relevant for documents parties have to provide on disclosure, and how those documents can be used in other litigation, civil or criminal. Without prejudice correspondence (admissions, settlement offers or other information contained therein) between solicitors is a completely different matter altogether to disclosure of documents.