Prince Harry loses and wins

Yes Iam64 I realise that the judge thought that OS was truthful and reliable in the evidence he gave in court, and the fact that OS has not been either reliable or truthful in other situations is not for the judge to consider in this context. It seems a pity to me that OS was thought to be the best witness in this case because we know he is not truthful.
The judge can only consider the evidence brought before him or her in the court.
I think it good that the case was brought because hacking phones is illegal and should not be tolerated. I’m unsure why this was a civil case and not a criminal case since phone hacking is illegal. The hacking of the phones of the family of Millie Dowling was appalling, Prince Harry, not so much (though still illegal.)

Why did the judge need to speak of his belief in a witness ?

growstuff

Chestnut

eazybee

I accept that hacking phones to sell information for money is illegal; betraying confidences to sell for money is not.

To me they are equally reprehensible.

You could argue that Harry 'hacked' private conversations with friends and family, which is exactly the same crime. Private conversations which were never intended for public distribution can be stolen in more ways than one.

I'm fairly sure that passing on information from private conversations isn't the same crime. There are laws covering telephone and digital communications, but not private conversations.

It's not a crime in law but it is the same crime morally. Distributing details of private conversations for the purpose of making money is wrong either way.

It’s normal to do that Annie. Judges often say they found X to be/not to be a rational witness - part of the process of explaining how they arrived at their decision.

It’s also quite usual for judges not to read newspapers and I wouldn’t be surprised if this one had heard nothing of Scobie outside the courtroom.

Would claims that the King was racist have escaped the judges notice

Who knows. I remember Lord Denning saying he never read newspapers and there was that famous case years ago when the judge asked who The Beatles were.

But Scobie wasn’t the only witness to testify that Morgan knew about the phone hacking.

Doubtless, Harry and Ms Markle will be confecting a screenplay out of this for another "in depth" interview with Oprah W. I wonder if Oprah consciously practices that choreographed "Oh.My.God!" expression in a mirror? Or maybe gets Meghan to give her acting lessons?
An unholy trinity, for sure, but the various media production companies will be lining up with their cheque books......

In a contested case like this, the Judge will give a written Judgement setting out the reasons for their decisions. That’s the reason OS was referred to. Additionally other witnesses gave evidence that Morgan was aware his journalists were hacking. The Court focus is on the matter before them, so it wasn’t this Judges task to consider whether Harry made allegations of racism about his father.

No one has said the judge task was to consider whether Harry made allegations of racism about his father,

I do not believe the judge avoided this breaking news, may have refused to read newspapers but never heard ‘the King is
racist’ in conversation? no i don’t believe it

Anniebach

No one has said the judge task was to consider whether Harry made allegations of racism about his father,

I do not believe the judge avoided this breaking news, may have refused to read newspapers but never heard ‘the King is
racist’ in conversation? no i don’t believe it

It was irrelevant to this case.

This case wasn’t about whether the king is or isn’t racist.

Anniebach

Judges believed guilty those who were innocent and hanged

Surely, in murder cases such as these, it was the juries - not the judges - who believed these individuals to be guilty?

Agree, not about whether the king is racist, but did the judge not hear anything about the King being racist?

The judge sums up the case Bodach

Annie it is the jury who decide whether someone is guilty in a criminal trial. The judge then has to pronounce sentence and explain his/her reasons for the sentence decided upon. Years ago of course the sentence for murder was death. Nowadays it is life imprisonment with the judge deciding how long the guilty person must be imprisoned before being able to apply for parole, or indeed whether the crime is such that parole can never be considered. The judge does not decide whether someone is guilty or not.

CoolCoco

The fact that MGN offered to settle out of court indicated an admission of guilt and a cover up. I don’t think Harry was in it for the money. He wanted to show that phone hacking was wrong . Whatever PH says in his books isn’t the point, he hasn’t hacked anyone’s phones.

The Mirror always admitted to some of the cases - hence the offer to settle years ago - It's just that they didn't agree that every negative story about Harry was due to hacking. Some of the articles were shown to have come from press releases and interviews that Harry himself gave

Harry seems very keen to protect his own privacy but doesn't care when he intrudes on the privacy of others - especially his own family

Whether you think PH invades others privacies or not isn’t what this case was about, some people seem to miss that point. PH didn’t hack anyone’s phones or hound anyone’s friends or jump out with a battery of cameras in order to sell papers.

GSM will know, but the difference here I think, is because this was a civil case, not a criminal case, so therefore the judge, or sometimes it’s a panel of three judges, will decide if the law has, on the balance of probabilities, been broken.

In my opinion, Prince Harry is not a nice person, and has repeatedly shown himself to be not a nice person. He has misbehaved for years and had an easy time of it because of who he is. However, Harry was not on trial in this case.

Harry is not on trial, does not change the fact he has no respect for privacy for anyone except himself.

CoolCoco

Whether you think PH invades others privacies or not isn’t what this case was about, some people seem to miss that point. PH didn’t hack anyone’s phones or hound anyone’s friends or jump out with a battery of cameras in order to sell papers.

Absolutely. People seem determined to cast Harry as the villain regardless of the very serious press misdemeanours. I’m far more interested in taking about the implications of this case on other phone hacking claims than I am on the bashing Harry theme, but it seems very few people want to discuss that.

I thought that phone hacking had been exposed and dealt with in some part some years ago.. It is a horrible thing to do and I make no case for the papers using it.
Harry, I think, is doing this partly because he thinks of himself as the caped crusader, and partly because he knows it will distress older more conservative branches of the royal family, particularly his father; I think the last royal to appear in the witness box in a court case was about 120 years ago, but I may be wrong.

Casdon

CoolCoco

Whether you think PH invades others privacies or not isn’t what this case was about, some people seem to miss that point. PH didn’t hack anyone’s phones or hound anyone’s friends or jump out with a battery of cameras in order to sell papers.

Absolutely. People seem determined to cast Harry as the villain regardless of the very serious press misdemeanours. I’m far more interested in taking about the implications of this case on other phone hacking claims than I am on the bashing Harry theme, but it seems very few people want to discuss that.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Thank you for explaining in layman's terms how these things work Germanshepherdsmum. I don't know enough to comment, and Harry's past behaviour is obviously irrelevant here, so I'll just read quietly.

Criticism of a liar who tells the world his brother has been circumcised is ‘bashing him’