Share and Follow
Prince Harry’s no-show – analysis
Jim Waterson
Prince Harry’s no-show at the high court has caused a headache for his legal team, who were left explaining that he had chosen to stay in Los Angeles to attend his daughter’s second birthday party, writes media editor Jim Waterson from the high court.
Prince Harry had originally been scheduled to give evidence in his phone-hacking trial against Mirror Group Newspapers on Tuesday. But the judge had asked for him to be in court ready to give evidence on Monday, in case lawyers finished their opening legal arguments earlier than expected.
When the Mirror’s legal team indicated they would speed through their opening arguments, Harry’s team were forced to accept that their client would not be ready in time.
David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister, told the court that his client only left California on Sunday night after prioritising his toddler’s party. As a result Prince Harry would not be available to give evidence in London on Monday afternoon.
Dozens of photographers, television camera crews, and reporters had gathered outside the Rolls Building to capture the arrival of the prince, only to learn he was still dealing with jet lag.
The judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, was visibly irritated by the prince’s failure to be ready to give evidence – although in diplomatic legal language he simply said he was “a little surprised” by the Prince’s absence. Given the case is being heard without a jury, it is considered unwise to anger to annoy the one person who will decide the outcome of the case.
Key events
There was an agreement that Princes William and Harry would be left alone after their mother’s death, Sherborne says.
But this did not happen, he says, presenting an article “Prince Harry forced to stop playing rugby due to polo injury”.
Sherborne says the article has all the “tell tale signs” of unlawful information gathering.
Sherborne refers to another article from 2000 concerning Harry’s 16th birthday, which he argues is another occasion of unlawful information gathering.
“It’s a small story,” Sherborne says, about Harry’s birthday celebrations.
Harry turned up “unannounced” at the pub but a photographer knew he would be there, Sherborne says.
The column – 3am – which this story appeared in had a history of phone hacking. The journalists involved have been involved in admitted unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says.
Princess Diana’s phone hacked by Piers Morgan’s Daily Mirror, documents about Michael Barrymore reveal
Articles about Harry’s personal distress have “tell tale signs” of unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says, given that Princess Diana was a “huge target” of the Daily Mirror. Evidence of interception of Diana’s phone when Piers Morgan was editor are in documents related to Michael Barrymore, the light entertainer.
Journalists would have learned details of Harry’s life in Diana’s voicemails, Sherborne says.
Sherborne is outlining some more detail about Harry’s claim.
In January 1996, Harry was just 11 years old. It was a time of high interest from the newspapers into the royal family, around the time of then Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s divorce.
The prince was still at school although that “offered little protection” from the Mirror’s unlawful activities, Sherborne says.
He presents a note showing the instruction of the notorious Media Investigations – a trade name for a firm run by private investigator Jonathan Rees.
The payment was made on 3 January 1996 in relation to “Tiggy” – this was Tiggy Legge-Bourke, who was Harry’s nanny and later guardian, Sherborne says.
The journalists who wrote the articles presented as part of Harry’s claim were all frequent users of the unlawful methods of information gathering, and therefore were highly likely to use the same methods in respect to stories about Harry, Sherborne argues.
The hearing has resumed.
Sherborne says Harry was subjected to unlawful activities from when he was a young boy at school, past the tragic death of his mother, through Sandhurst army training and then young adulthood.
There was no area of Harry’s life that wasn’t touched by press interest, including relationships he formed.
“Nothing was sacrosanct and out of bounds, there was no protection from these unlawful methods,” Sherborne says.
Prince Harry’s no-show – analysis
Jim Waterson
Prince Harry’s no-show at the high court has caused a headache for his legal team, who were left explaining that he had chosen to stay in Los Angeles to attend his daughter’s second birthday party, writes media editor Jim Waterson from the high court.
Prince Harry had originally been scheduled to give evidence in his phone-hacking trial against Mirror Group Newspapers on Tuesday. But the judge had asked for him to be in court ready to give evidence on Monday, in case lawyers finished their opening legal arguments earlier than expected.
When the Mirror’s legal team indicated they would speed through their opening arguments, Harry’s team were forced to accept that their client would not be ready in time.
David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister, told the court that his client only left California on Sunday night after prioritising his toddler’s party. As a result Prince Harry would not be available to give evidence in London on Monday afternoon.
Dozens of photographers, television camera crews, and reporters had gathered outside the Rolls Building to capture the arrival of the prince, only to learn he was still dealing with jet lag.
The judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, was visibly irritated by the prince’s failure to be ready to give evidence – although in diplomatic legal language he simply said he was “a little surprised” by the Prince’s absence. Given the case is being heard without a jury, it is considered unwise to anger to annoy the one person who will decide the outcome of the case.
Jim Waterson
Prince Harry’s legal war on the British media has so many different fronts that it can be hard to keep track of what is going on, writes Jim Waterson.
Every national newspaper – with the exception of the Telegraph, Guardian, and Financial Times – is owned by a company currently being sued by the prince.
In addition to an ongoing libel case against the Mail on Sunday, Harry currently has three entirely separate claims ongoing relating to phone hacking and illegal information gathering.
The cases against the newspaper publishers are:
1) Mirror Group Newspapers: This is the case that is currently being tried at the high court in London. Harry alleges that journalists working for the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and People both hacked his phone and illegally used private investigators to dig up information for stories.
Read Related Also: CNN's Internal Civil War Goes Nuclear, CEO Chris Licht Now Being Publicly Condemned By His Own Employees
The Mirror says many of the stories were of a “breath-taking level of triviality”. Harry missed a legal deadline to bring the case and that many of the stories about the prince were not obtained illegally but came from legal sources – including his father’s press officers.
2) News Group Newspapers: A judge is currently deciding whether to allow this case against Rupert Murdoch’s media company to go to trial, with a verdict expected in the coming weeks. Harry alleges that journalists working for the Sun under the editorship hacked his phone and illegally used private investigators to dig up information for stories.
It is already accepted that both Harry had his phone hacked by journalists working for Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World. But News Group Newspapers insists Harry missed a legal deadline to bring the case against the Sun.
3) Associated Newspapers: A judge is currently deciding whether to allow this case to go to trial, with a verdict expected in the coming weeks. Harry – and a group of other claimants including Doreen Lawrence and Elton John – allege that journalists working for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday used private investigators to carry out illegal information gathering in the search for stories.
The publisher insists the allegations are “preposterous smears” and the underlying evidence is disputed.
The court is taking a short break.
There were also those around Prince Harry whose details appeared in PalmPilots (digital devices which were precursors to modern day tablets) owned by Mirror reporters, Sherborne says.
Contact details for people like the now King Charles’s private secretary and Harry’s close friend at the time, Guy Pelly, appeared on the PalmPilots of Mirror journalists who have been identified in earlier legal cases finding unlawful information gathering at the Mirror Group.
Sherborne is listing a number of articles that were previously found to have involved unlawful information gathering, such as phone hacking, in earlier legal cases.
Prince Harry was subject to voicemail interception and use of private investigators, says barrister
Turning to the “means”, Sherborne says Harry was subjected to the interception of voicemails, the use of a large number of private investigators to obtain information about him and the various aspects of his personal life, as well as “blagging” billing data and other private information.
The claim covers three periods, Sherborne says, from 1996 to 1999, from 1999 to 2006, and then from 2007 to 2011.
The use of phone hacking was widespread during those years but despite that the newspaper admits just one instruction of unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says.
There are no other admissions of unlawful activity, Sherborne says.
Andrew Green KC, for the publisher, previously said it was admitted that a private investigator was instructed, by an MGN journalist at The People, to unlawfully gather information about Harry’s activities at the Chinawhite nightclub one night in February 2004.
“That we say is a startling enough position when one considers the findings… that it was habitual and widespread across all three newspapers,” he says.
Sherborne says that “even what went on in Sandhurst when he was doing his army training” made it to the Mirror newspapers.
“It’s clear stories about Harry’s private life drove sales,” Sherborne says.
“Articles were the ends… these were the ends that justified the means for the defendant (Mirror Group),” Sherborne says.
Sherborne is going through some of the articles by way of example.
A front page Mirror story about Prince Harry catching glandular fever, the so-called “kissing disease”, at the age of 17 is presented.
“It drives circulation,” Sherborne says.
Another article about a “private argument” between Harry and his brother is presented, followed by a front page article headlined “Harry’s girl to dump him” on Mirror.
“Every facet of his life, even the ups and downs of his first serious relationship with Miss Davy (Chelsea Davy), is splashed across the front of the papers,” Sherborne says.
David Sherborne, Prince Harry’s barrister, is now outlining the duke’s claim.
There are at least 30 private investigators used by Mirror Group to obtain information about Harry, Sherborne says.
There are 147 newspaper articles submitted to back up his claim, which Sherborne says is a “fraction” of the volume of coverage published about Harry by the Mirror titles.
The lawyer representing Mirror Group Newspapers has also expressed frustration that he we will not have enough time to cross-examine Harry.
Andrew Green KC says he needs at least one and half days to cross examine Harry on all aspects of the claim.
“That can not be done in one day,” he says.
Judge expresses frustration that Harry will not give evidence in person today
The honourable Mr Justice Fancourt, who is presiding over the case, has expressed frustration that Prince Harry will not be giving evidence in person today.
The Duke’s barrister, David Sherborne, that Harry will attend tomorrow to give evidence and suggested he was delayed due to his daughter’s birthday party. Princess Lilibet of Sussex turned two yesterday.
“The Duke of Sussex is attending tomorrow to give evidence,” Sherborne said. “He flew yesterday evening from Los Angeles where he attended his daughter’s birthday.”
Mr Justice Fancourt said he was “a little surprised” to hear the duke would not be attending court on Monday.
The judge said he gave a direction earlier in the trial that witnesses should be available the day before their evidence was due to be heard in case the legal teams’ opening speeches ran short.
Opening summary
Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of phone-hacking claims against Mirror Group Newspapers at the High Court in London.
Today we’re going to hear claims from the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, who is at some point – most likely tomorrow – to give evidence in person, becoming the first senior royal to be cross-examined in court since the 19th century.
Harry will allege that journalists at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People used illegal methods including phone hacking to obtain stories about him.
Mirror Group Newspapers will try to cast doubt on Harry’s evidence, his reliability and why he waited so long to bring the case.
We understand Harry’s written witness statement will be read to the court today and scrutinised by the parties involved.
As proceedings begin, get up to speed with this state of play by our media editor Jim Waterson:
