Prince Harry v The Mirror in phone hacking case

It seems to me from reading the witness statement (prepared by his solicitors after zoom calls - I was astounded that they refer to king as HRH) and the snippets about the trial I’ve heard on the news, that a lot of people had a lot of information about Harry. So much is about leaving voicemails with private information on them - I can’t speak for anyone else but I find that very surprising - who has their phone on their person, inaccessible to anyone else, 24/7? There seems to be much opportunity for someone else to be involved in the group of trusted people who knew things - for instance booking an airline flight is not a conversation between his private secretary and the chief of the airline; others would legitimately have access to that information and leak it for £££.

Obviously one can’t form a proper view on the basis of the information that we have, but the judge will look at each allegation separately and he only has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that in one case information was obtained by hacking.

I’m a bit confused here. It has been said on this thread that this case is not about phone hacking as such, as that has already been proven, but it is about who knew that phone hacking was taking place, in other words if the senior management at the newspaper knew and accepted phone hacking. Looking at the evidence given by Prince Harry, if it can be called evidence because to me it seems to be merely his opinions and not in any way actual evidence, but looking at that, it seems to me that the case is actually about whether or not Harry was hacked. I’m confused. Maybe GSM can help.

It should be remembered that judges swear allegiance to the crown and all it’s heirs. The case Meghan brought, she won, despite not appearing and despite false information being given which she then described as she ‘forgot.’ Given these two facts, I’m wondering about the possibility that our judges will never rule against the crown/royal family.
We shall await the judgement.

Hacking has been proved in respect of other newspapers but apparently not the Mirror as yet.

Yes, judges swear allegiance but that doesn’t remove their duty to be impartial.

Anne was fined

Thanks GSM.

maddyone

I’m a bit confused here. It has been said on this thread that this case is not about phone hacking as such, as that has already been proven, but it is about who knew that phone hacking was taking place, in other words if the senior management at the newspaper knew and accepted phone hacking. Looking at the evidence given by Prince Harry, if it can be called evidence because to me it seems to be merely his opinions and not in any way actual evidence, but looking at that, it seems to me that the case is actually about whether or not Harry was hacked. I’m confused. Maybe GSM can help.

I think (although it’s only from Googling) that proving he (and others) were hacked is the first step. Then it will move on to who hacked. Was it only independent investigators acting for themselves or Did the Board and the senior management authorise it or know their information came from hacking?

Then it will move on again to the question of damages.

But until it has been judged that hacking did take place the next steps are irrelevant.

It will only take one proven incidence to make the first part of the claim successful and only one subsequent one of the Board knew. But then each individual claimant will have to show a likelihood that they themselves were hacked to succeed individually.

And then they will have to show to what extent they were damaged for a payout.

That’s my understanding but I readily defer to GSM or anyone else with Legal qualifications.

maddyone

It should be remembered that judges swear allegiance to the crown and all it’s heirs. The case Meghan brought, she won, despite not appearing and despite false information being given which she then described as she ‘forgot.’ Given these two facts, I’m wondering about the possibility that our judges will never rule against the crown/royal family.
We shall await the judgement.

Well that would be corrupt.

Thanks Lathyrus.

Of course it would be corrupt WR but as the case Meghan brought, having admitted that she ‘forgot’ something (I can’t remember the details now) but she still won her case and probably she shouldn’t have done had the correct evidence been presented, I just wondered a bit.
I know that our judges all swear allegiance to the crown and it’s heirs, and therefore where perhaps opinions come into it, rather than hard evidence, I wondered if the judge could be persuaded to support the crown. But I’m not a lawyer and GSM is a lawyer and I’m reassured by her comments.

I know that our judges all swear allegiance to the crown and it’s heirs, and therefore where perhaps opinions come into it, rather than hard evidence, I wondered if the judge could be persuaded to support the crown

This is a civil case, not a criminal case brought by the Crown Prosecution Service.

There will not be a guilty verdict as no-one is being tried. The judge will find for the claimants or not.

The judge has to set out the reasons for his decision and if there’s the slightest suspicion of bias the decision would be appealed. The judiciary in this country, unlike some, rightly have a reputation for being above persuasion or bias.

Thanks for reassurance GSM and Callistemon.

maddyone

Thanks for reassurance GSM and Callistemon.

I'm not legally trained but this is what I think:

The Oath of Allegiance is to The Crown, the present monarch. Including his heirs and successors means it continues should one of them succeed but not until then in their case.
The monarch cannot be prosecuted but the heirs and successors could be, as we saw when Princess Anne was fined and banned from driving for speeding.

Just wondering if Harry is still regarded as a royal seeing that he is no longer living in the UK or taking on any royal duties. I suppose by birth he is but he has made it clear he doesn’t want to be part of their ‘firm’.

Callistemon21

^I know that our judges all swear allegiance to the crown and it’s heirs, and therefore where perhaps opinions come into it, rather than hard evidence, I wondered if the judge could be persuaded to support the crown^

This is a civil case, not a criminal case brought by the Crown Prosecution Service.

There will not be a guilty verdict as no-one is being tried. The judge will find for the claimants or not.

I hope the other claimants have some actual hard evidence, as Prince H doesn’t seem to have any.It’s all about his feelings and how he believes his phone was hacked.Even before he had a mobile most likely😄
Saying mad stuff like the media were against him from birth.
He’s said he regards it as his mission to try and destroy the newspapers here in the UK.Of course we all know that journos and all newspapers are just angels in other countries.😙

There can’t be anyone who thinks phone hacking is alright, but if you take someone to court you need to prove it.

From what I've read, Harry says it was a "kindly barrister", one used by the rich and famous, who persuaded him to pursue the claim.

One would presume this barrister thought it would be worth going to court, surely he didn't think that Harry could fail, or would win merely because he is a member of the Royal Family?

Barristers get paid- win or lose 😬

Civil cases based on probability do favour the claimants though.

Kindly?😂
He wanted another high profile case which also brings much dosh.

come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly.

We don’t know that this barrister acted for him do we?

Apologies - Harry said the barrister was 'a lovely fellow' whom he bumped into in France.
As you do.

I have no doubt as to the probity of the judge. He will find on the balance of probabilities, this being a civil action, on the evidence and witnesses before him.

The barrister is David Sherborne, and was introduced to H by Elton John on holiday in France. H suggested that it was Mr. Sherborne's idea to pursue legal action. (DT 8.6.23.) Apparently it is in 'my book.'