Harry and the secret deal

Why the Duke of Sussex says his phone-hacking claim should go ahead

Prince Harry’s war against the British tabloid media was back in the High Court yesterday. The Duke of Sussex himself was nowhere to be seen. But his claims and comments have dominated the coverage — at least in the news outlets that he’s not suing. What’s going on?

Three claims

The defendant in this week’s case is News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World. Harry accuses the newspapers of intercepting his voicemail messages — phone hacking— and obtaining private information by deception, known as blagging.

This case is separate from the breach of privacy claims that the duke and others have brought against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail. Harry arrived unexpectedly in court at a preliminary hearing in that case last month but yesterday he was said have been watching the proceedings by video-link.

Prince Harry arriving at the High Court last month

Harry’s third claim — against the publishers of the Mirror and Sunday Mirror — is expected to be heard next month.

Where have all these stories come from?

Ahead of a hearing such as this, lawyers for the parties send lengthy documents to the judge and the other parties. The most important of these are skeleton arguments and witness statements.

Skeletons are meant to be brief written summaries of oral arguments to be presented in court by the barristers representing each party — although sometimes they are fleshed out in some detail.

Witnesses generally make written statements which form part of the evidence in the case. Other parties may then cross-examine the witness.

Documents that are before the court are generally available to the media once a hearing begins. Specialist reporters from PA Media collect these documents electronically and circulate them to those covering the case.

Skelton arguments and witness statements are often easier for reporters to follow than oral arguments on, say, the principles of promissory estoppel. But they are not usually as newsworthy as the key witness statement in this case.

Where have we got to so far?

Harry’s claim against News Group Newspapers was issued in 2019. A trial date has been set for next January. At the end of last year, though, the publishers responded by arguing that the claim should be struck out or dismissed. Many of Harry’s complaints go back 20 years, they argued, and his claim had been brought too late — after the six-year limitation period had run out. Needless to say, that’s disputed.

In support of their strike-out application, the publishers served nearly 1,700 pages of evidence on Harry’s lawyers. What’s made today’s headlines is his response.