Prince Harry loses and wins

maddyone

I agree eazybee in that it’s very strange that the judge found Scobie’s evidence to be straightforward and reliable. I don’t understand how anyone, let alone a judge, can unilaterally decide that Scobie is either straightforward, or even worse, reliable. Scobie is clearly not reliable, he has lied. I suppose the judge must have meant that Scobie was able to appear reliable, which is of course, very different from actually being reliable.

Presumably he meant that he was reliable in this instance.

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.

I agree eazybee in that it’s very strange that the judge found Scobie’s evidence to be straightforward and reliable. I don’t understand how anyone, let alone a judge, can unilaterally decide that Scobie is either straightforward, or even worse, reliable. Scobie is clearly not reliable, he has lied. I suppose the judge must have meant that Scobie was able to appear reliable, which is of course, very different from actually being reliable.

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 am still surprised that the Judge found it necessary to comment that he found Scobie a 'straightforward and reliable witness'.
Straightforward, yes , in the delivery of his evidence;
'reliable'; how does he know this without prior knowledge of the person? He cannot have been unaware that Scobie has been found to have lied about the inclusion of names in his manuscript given for translation. Or was this another example of the Markle team 'mis-remembering?
Sorry, fairly trivial but it does make one uncomfortable about the total impartiality of the legal profession.

Our judges are only able to consider the evidence before them. They can’t take anything else into consideration, and so although we all know about the despicable behaviour of Harry in betraying his family’s privacy, this cannot be take into consideration by the judge, who may well not even be aware of this behaviour anyway. It’s irrelevant to the case, and the judge found in Harry’s favour, in only fifteen of the charges remember, another eighteen were thrown out.

nanna8

He was never going to lose his case was he? He could make up anything he wanted. Nobs stick together.

Suggesting our Judges aren’t independent is just wrong

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.

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.

Prince Harry could have accepted a settlement of £200,000 in 2020 when his brother settled and was awarded £1 million. He could have avoided legal fees and also received interest on the £200,000 for three years so it seems that over all he has lost. The judge also made some scathing comments about him in the final statement.

Well it was a sort of win for Harry

Harry's original case claimed that hacking was in 150 articles published by the Mirror. The trial went ahead with the 33 strongest cases - of which the judge found in Harry's favour in 15 cases but 18 did not stand up to careful analysis.

Harry was awarded £140,000 in damages, only 30% of the £440,000 her had claimed. I read that he was offered £200,000 to settle but refused because he wanted more.

I haven't read anything about costs and who will pay what. I'm sure that the Mirror will have to pay quite a lot of costs but Harry may have to pay some as well, especially with the high priced legal team he hired. Harry was also ordered to pay £50,000 to the Daily Mail after his failed attempt to get their defence thrown out the other week.

The only person making a lot of money will be the barrister David Sherborne who seems to have dozens of these claims. Harry still has several cases outstanding,

He was never going to lose his case was he? He could make up anything he wanted. Nobs stick together.

Phone hacking is wrong. Does Harry think saying or publishing things that aren’t strictly correct is any better?

Phone hacking is a despicable thing to do. I still think Piers Morgan should have been called to give an account of his behaviour and the behaviour of his paper.

Unfortunately this judgement will only embolden Prince Harry to continue his vendetta against his family and the media. He doesn’t give a toss about the privacy of his family and/or others who he came across. He’s just as disgusting as Piers Morgan in how he operates his life.

I think Harry is the equal in horribleness of Piers Morgan.

Am I correct in my assumption that it was a civil case where the balance of probability is the test?.
It’s pretty certain that the information in question was obtained by illegal means, Piers Morgan as editor did or should have known that.

Proving that in a criminal court is a whole different matter

The Guardian:
During the trial the former political editor of the Mirror said staff at the newspaper heard Morgan openly discussing how phone hacking operated ….. and knew his journalists were involved in phone hacking.
In his Judgement, the judge accepted this evidence ‘without hesitation’.
The court also heard from Omid Scobie …. Who said he heard Morgan discussing the use of voicemails while doing work experience at the Mirror in 2002.

As GSM says, if the Judge found OS to be a reliable witness inCourt that’s all that matters

I found Piers Morgsn’s statement disgusting. The Judge got it wrong he said before launching into yet another nasty vindictive attack of Prince Harry - Morgan clearly sees Harry as the perpetrator and himself as the victim. Horrible man

The case of Milly Dowler was appalling, and rightly dealt with severely.

Harry resents intrusion into his life, still regarding himself
as a public figure, but happily intrudes into the lives of others via his 'book' with mean-spirited comments about some of his former advisors, their appearance and demeanor. They are not in a position to take him to court for his spite.
He is riding for a fall.

To be honest I don’t care who it is that’s pursuing a legitimate case against phone hacking, it’s irrelevant what’s gone before with that person, or what comes after. If they were hacked it is completely unacceptable, and by winning it is a small step on the road to stopping it happening to anybody else. It has to be high profile people who pursue this, because Joe Public doesn’t stand any chance of winning against worldwide media sources, unjust though that is.

There was also the woman he lost his virginity to, did she deserve to be publicly spoken of

One of Harry's claims that he lost was because it was proven that he didn't even have a phone then! There were quite a few of these lost claims. You would think he might have tried to get his facts straight.

Harry has been proven to be a liar/have an extremely unreliable memory in the past. I take much of what he says with a pinch of salt.

I also find it totally hypocritical of Harry to be outraged at media intrusion into his private life when he has been ruthless at intruding into the private life of William in particular. (eg. re W being circumcised.) I don't think Harry is in a position to call for "truth and accountability" after what he has done to members of his family. It's "Do as I say, not as I do."

On the other hand, I am obviously not condoning phone hacking in any way whatsoever, and it was horrific what happened regarding poor Milly Dowler and her family.

I would feel some sympathy for Harry if he hadn't spent so much of his time since leaving Britain hounding his immediate family and former staff, and revealing many private (unproven) accusations which should stay within families.

As a self-proclaimed victim he is intensely aware of the distress this causes.

Of course he was a victim - what else do you call hounded by the press, having every potential girlfriend equally hounded for tabloid gossip.

Phone hacking is wrong - even if the phone belongs to Harry.

But I'm more concerned with victims like Milly Dowler and her family.