Prince Harry v The Mirror in phone hacking case

I’m not going to get involved in these shenanigans except to say - I don’t believe anything the right wing press has to say. They are rotten to the core. It’s about time someone stood up to them. William may have settled out of court but why shouldn’t Harry (along with the others) go to court?

It’s nice to celebrate your child’s birthday obviously, but if I was called into court as a witness, I’d be there, child’s birthday or not. But then I don’t have any sense of entitlement at all.

Apparently he didn’t arrive until last night because he was celebrating Lilibet’s birthday.

Surely most families would hold the party a day early.

Or possibly his choice of lawyers.

eazybee

Apparently Harry hasn't bothered to turn up for the opening day of the case because his lawyers didn't think his presence was required. The Judge is not pleased.

He does know how to make friends and influence people.

If your lawyer says "Don't come" you don't go. It's as simple as that. If the judge is annoyed at anyone it will be his lawyers for giving him bad advice.

Apparently Harry hasn't bothered to turn up for the opening day of the case because his lawyers didn't think his presence was required. The Judge is not pleased.

He does know how to make friends and influence people.

The court case is to establish if a crime has been committed, as Lathyrus has pointed out. And to determine any damages that may possibly be paid. If Harry receives any compensation I hope he donates it to charity.

Glorianny

Jaberwok

No one has said they approve of phone hacking,what I have said is that after all this time I doubt Harry's motives for this court case are purely altruistic. Annie, surely you are not questioning Harry's moral duty??!! .

So saying you hope he loses isn't approving of breaking the law? That is a strange idea. If someone gets away with a crime and you support them aren't you showing you approve of their behaviour?

Harry could like William have settled out of court. No matter where the money went that is not a moral decision. Particularly for someone who is supposed to have the best interests of ordinary people at heart. I'm sure the charities welcomed the money, but the ordinary people, like the families of the victims of 9/11, or 7/7 , who were hacked, might have found someone standing up to the media more satisfying. And there is always the concept that given enough high profile actions the newspapers would have settled all the claims.

Your talking as if the crime has been proven, in this case it hasn't.

I think if you read the BBC article it the same as mine. That’s were I got my initial information after all. And then did a bit more research.

The four cases being brought as test cases will stand or fall as one.

Damages will be an individually decided matter. Usually in such cases each litigant will have to prove the extent to which they individually have been damaged and their award would be based on that.

As claims based on hacking damages have already been settled by a number of claimants, I can’t see there will be a money advantage in proving the NGN Board knew and approved so it must be principle, I guess that drives these claimants.

Unless they’ve got an ace up their sleeve, that could be difficult to prove. On jury duty we were reminded that the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. The onus is all on the prosecution to prove what it claims is true.

Lathyrus

Yeah. It’s not quite the way you have described either.

It’s not alleged hacking. Everyone agrees hacking took place. Other claims have already been settled. The allegation is that the owners and senior management colluded in the hacking, either by initiating it or permitting it to continue with their knowledge.
That is what has to be proved for these test cases to succeed.

They are arguing on some of the claims - notably those involving former girlfriend Chelsey - that time has “run out”.

The Daily Mail action has nothing whatever to do with this case. Unlike NGN the Mails totally deny any hacking took place. That will be a completely different court case.

Perhaps you should contact the BBC and correct them then.

Yeah. It’s not quite the way you have described either.

It’s not alleged hacking. Everyone agrees hacking took place. Other claims have already been settled. The allegation is that the owners and senior management colluded in the hacking, either by initiating it or permitting it to continue with their knowledge.
That is what has to be proved for these test cases to succeed.

They are arguing on some of the claims - notably those involving former girlfriend Chelsey - that time has “run out”.

The Daily Mail action has nothing whatever to do with this case. Unlike NGN the Mails totally deny any hacking took place. That will be a completely different court case.

Lathyrus

My understanding of the test cases being brought before the court is that there has already been an admission that phone hacking did take place and a number of claims have been settled, some time ago.

This case is about whether the Board and Senior management authorised the hacking, not whether phone hacking is right or wrong. That has already been established.

It will be up to the claimants to show proof, not that it happened, but that those in Senior positions authorised it or knew and did nothing to prevent it. That may not be easy to prove.

The four test cases are also to determine appropriate level of damages if the first premise is proved.

This is where Harry might come unstuck. It will be hard to argue any great level of damage if he has subsequently made public a whole raft of private information, including private information about others without their consent. The arguement being that he believes it is an acceptable action and does not accept that to do so causes damage.

Let's get this clear. Some papers have admitted hacking others haven't
The duke is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun for alleged hacking. Its lawyers are trying to have the case thrown out by arguing that Prince Harry has run out of time to bring it to court. The paper's owners have long admitted hacking took place at the News of the World - but never conceded it happened at The Sun.
Separately, the duke is one of seven people who allege unlawful intrusion by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The newspaper group vehemently denies that allegation.

So it isn't quite as you have described.
The case also involves personal damages because Harry alleges that the phone hacking contributed to his break up with Chelsea

He is not the only person involved in the legal action and these cases could pave the way for others.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65547034

Thanks Lathyrus. At least I’ll know what’s going on.

Thank you Lathyrus for clarifying exactly what this court case is about.

Thank you Callistemon.

I also thank you Lathyrus for your clear explanation and establishing that this case is not about whether or not phone hacking took place. I suspect we all agree that it is illegal and unpleasant. That’s not the point though. The point is, as Lathyrus has said, who knew and who authorised the hacking, and to establish appropriate level of damages.

Thanks Lathyrus for your clear and concise summary of these events. The question of what happened is without doubt else P.W wouldn't have been able to settle this matter three years ago. Who knew what or sanctioned what is after this time more difficult to prove, that and together with Harry's own lack of discretion concerning privacy both for himself and other people could be problematic. We shall see, time will tell.

It’s his bread and butter, he loves attention.
Paddyanne, very often smoke without fire, people purposefully
lie for whatever reasons. Afraid Harry not the brightest bulb and us led by wife. A complete nightmare. He has burned his boats.

My understanding of the test cases being brought before the court is that there has already been an admission that phone hacking did take place and a number of claims have been settled, some time ago.

This case is about whether the Board and Senior management authorised the hacking, not whether phone hacking is right or wrong. That has already been established.

It will be up to the claimants to show proof, not that it happened, but that those in Senior positions authorised it or knew and did nothing to prevent it. That may not be easy to prove.

The four test cases are also to determine appropriate level of damages if the first premise is proved.

This is where Harry might come unstuck. It will be hard to argue any great level of damage if he has subsequently made public a whole raft of private information, including private information about others without their consent. The arguement being that he believes it is an acceptable action and does not accept that to do so causes damage.

Siope

It’s not about ‘misreporting’. It’s about whether or not some media organisations used illegal methods to find information about public figures.

Exactly.

And it doesn't matter if the hacked person is Harry or anyone else, the principle remains the same.

If it's illegal - then doing it to Harry doesn't mitigate its illegality, or make it less of a vile operation because he's an unpopular person. And trawling people's private 'phone conversations to prise out personal details about them, is vile.

In other words, if it's wrong, it still remains wrong to do it to Harry.

Harry's treatment of his grandparents is what makes me dislike him the most, the rest of his revelations are pretty grim and tacky, but to cause the late Queen so much heartache, letting her believe to her grave that the RF and this country are worldwide considered to be racist,then after her death rescinding on that assumption was just dreadful. Refusing to see HM when she was dying, horribly as it turned out! How could he? Cruel doesn't begin to describe it. Same for Prince Philip. How on earth did that loving grandson turn into such a heartless monster?

Jaberwok

No one has said they approve of phone hacking,what I have said is that after all this time I doubt Harry's motives for this court case are purely altruistic. Annie, surely you are not questioning Harry's moral duty??!! .

So saying you hope he loses isn't approving of breaking the law? That is a strange idea. If someone gets away with a crime and you support them aren't you showing you approve of their behaviour?

Harry could like William have settled out of court. No matter where the money went that is not a moral decision. Particularly for someone who is supposed to have the best interests of ordinary people at heart. I'm sure the charities welcomed the money, but the ordinary people, like the families of the victims of 9/11, or 7/7 , who were hacked, might have found someone standing up to the media more satisfying. And there is always the concept that given enough high profile actions the newspapers would have settled all the claims.

Glorianny

Smileless2012

Where ever he learned it from, doesn't make it right and makes his desire to sue those who've done the same to him somewhat hypocritical.

There's one post that approves of it!

No it doesn't say that at all.
Don't twist posts.

The post says his actions are hypocritical

Smileless2012

Where ever he learned it from, doesn't make it right and makes his desire to sue those who've done the same to him somewhat hypocritical.

There's one post that approves of it!