Prince Harry is making his case against Mirror Group Newspapers.
On Tuesday, the Duke of Sussex stepped out at the High Court of the Royal Courts of Justice in London to testify against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over alleged unlawful information gathering. Prince Harry, 38, launched the claim in 2019, alleging that his phone voicemails were hacked. MGN is the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Daily Express and more.
Prince Harry was greeted by his attorney as he arrived at the High Court’s Rolls Building.
In his witness statement released Tuesday, the Duke of Sussex said that “tabloids would routinely publish articles about me that were often wrong but interspersed with snippets of truth, which I now think were most likely gleaned from voicemail interception and/or unlawful information gathering.”
“I genuinely feel that in every relationship that I’ve ever had — be that with friends, girlfriends, with family or with the army, there’s always been a third party involved, namely the tabloid press,” he said in the witness statement. “Having seen me grow up from a baby (being born into this ‘contractual relationship’ without any choice) and scrutinised my every move, the tabloids have known the challenges and mental health struggles that I have had to deal with throughout my childhood and adult life and for them to then play on that and use it to their own advantage, I think is, well, criminal.”
Among those named in the witness statement as people that Prince Harry regularly exchanged voice messages with were his brother Prince William, his father King Charles, his mother Princess Diana and his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy.
Prince Harry also detailed unusual phone activity, including listening to voicemails for the first time that didn’t register on the phone as a new message. He said in the witness statement, “I wouldn’t go into my voicemail unless the little envelope symbol flashed up on my phone signaling to me that I had a new message. Sometimes this symbol would vanish before I had a chance to listen to the voicemail.”
On the witness stand, Prince Harry was probed by MGN’s lawyer Andrew Green. Harry, who was first addressed in court as “the Duke of Sussex” then subsequently as “Prince Harry,” said that “every single article has caused me distress,” claiming that the behavior of people around him changed due to the contents of the articles.
Stating that “newspapers are always in every palace, unfortunately,” Prince Harry said that he “saw a lot of articles at the time, and the ones I didn’t see, I was made aware of by the reaction of other people.”
Prince Harry added that tabloids have “blood on their hands” for the pain they’ve caused.
At one point, Green pointed to an article published in 2000 about Prince Harry going to a London gastropub, saying that there were other ways that the newspaper might have learned about the outing beside unlawful methods, such as a member of the public reporting the information.
Harry said, “I do not believe that as a witness it’s my job to deconstruct the article or be able to answer which parts are unlawfully obtained and which aren’t. I think the journalist themselves should be doing that.”
Regarding a story about Prince Harry breaking his thumb while at school, the Duke of Sussex said in the witness statement that the “level of detail” in the story was “just surprising.” When Green asked him whose phone had been hacked to obtain the information, Harry suggested it had been the doctor’s phone before adding that he “can’t be sure.”
When Green said that Harry was now in the “realms of total speculation,” the prince replied, “I don’t believe so.” He added that the “journalist would hopefully be able to shed some light on how she got that information.”
After a lunch break, Green said a story about Prince Harry contracting glandular fever quoted a palace spokesperson and appeared in articles from other newspapers. “I see the similarities…but anything else would be speculation,” Harry said on the witness stand.
Green also questioned a story about Prince Harry being named a godfather to his former nanny’s child, as the news appeared in The Sunday Times a week before the article in question.
“Again, I see the similarities,” Harry said.
Harry did not appear in court on Monday, the day after his and Meghan Markle’s daughter Princess Lilibet’s second birthday. His attorney David Sherborne told the court that his client was not available to give evidence after traveling from California on Sunday night.
“His travel arrangements are such and his security arrangements are such that it is a little bit tricky,” Sherborne said, according to Reuters.
King Charles’ younger son makes history as he takes the stand against the newspaper group. According to Reuters, Prince Harry became the first prominent member of the British royal family to give evidence in court in 130 years. The last royal to do so was King Edward VII, who testified as a witness in a divorce case in 1870 and again in a slander trial over a card game in 1890 before becoming King.
In April, the Associated Press reported that Prince Harry was expected to testify against MGN in early to mid-June. The trial itself began May 10 — just four days after the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla. Prince Harry made a quick trip to the U.K. to see his father crowned at Westminster Abbey on May 6 and traveled back home to California hours after. Meghan Markle remained stateside with their young children on their son Prince Archie’s 4th birthday.
The Duke of Sussex is one of four “representative” claimants chosen as “test cases” from a larger group of high-profile figures suing the publisher, The Independent previously reported. The other claimants selected for trial are actress Nikki Sanderson, actor Michael Turner and Fiona Wightman, ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse.
Over 100 people are suing MGN for alleged illegal activity between 1991 and 2022, Reuters reported. The claimants’ attorneys allege that senior editors and executives at MGN were aware of and approved such actions. The newspaper group has denied the accusations and said that some of the claims were brought too late.
[via]
