Harry’s testimony about phone hacking contained “disturbing factual inconsistencies,” the hacker judge says
- Harry claimed that a “secret agreement” prevented him from making hacking claims earlier
- Judge said new evidence was “disturbing” because it contradicted an earlier claim
- He previously said he could not sue before 2019 because he had no knowledge of hacking
A High Court judge yesterday questioned “factual inconsistencies” in Prince Harry’s explosive testimony in his latest battle with the British press.
The Duke of Sussex first claimed on Tuesday that a “secret agreement” between the royal family and news executives prevented him from making his phone hack claims earlier.
But Mr Justice Fancourt said this new evidence ‘disturbed’ him, as it contradicted his original argument that he could not charge before 2019 because he had ‘no knowledge’ of phone hacking.
News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, are fighting to have the cases brought by Prince Harry and actor Hugh Grant dropped, saying they should have filed sooner.
They have argued that Harry was at the “epicenter” of the scandal and claim it is “fanciful” of him to suggest that he had no knowledge of phone hacking before filing his lawsuit in 2019.
A High Court judge questioned ‘factual inconsistencies’ in Prince Harry’s testimony in his latest battle with the British press. Pictured: The Duke of Sussex arrives at the Supreme Court last month
News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, are fighting to have the cases brought by Prince Harry and actor Hugh Grant dropped (pictured)
The Duke of Sussex responded by submitting a 31-page deposition claiming that it was in fact the existence of a ‘secret agreement’ with NGN, approved by the Queen, which prevented him from making any claims.
He said the royal family agreed to prosecute NGN only after the group’s legal battle with other hacking plaintiffs ended.
The royals’ claims would then be quietly “admitted or dealt with with an apology.” NGN denies that this deal existed. The duke, who watched via video link, says he was first made aware of the deal in 2012 and only filed his claim in 2019 after becoming frustrated with NGN’s “filibustering” of the deal.
But Mr Justice Fancourt wondered yesterday how Harry could simultaneously state that he was unable to file a claim before 2019, but also that he was unable to file a claim in 2012 serve.
He said: “Another thing that worries me is what appears to be a factual inconsistency in the current case being argued about how the Duke of Sussex did not have the knowledge before 2019 to make a claim and your proposed amendment which appears to say he would have filed a claim in 2012 except for the secret agreement.’
David Sherborne, for Harry, insisted that if he had made a claim in 2012 it would have been “completely different,” but the judge replied, “I’m talking about the factual inconsistencies in the way the case is being argued.”
The judge also wondered why Mr Sherborne had suddenly introduced this new evidence without requesting it be presented to the court.
Mr Justice Fancourt wondered yesterday how Harry could simultaneously state that he had no knowledge to make a claim before 2019, but also that he was unable to make a claim in 2012. Pictured: Supreme Court, London
He said the plaintiff’s legal team should have turned to the defendants to give them a chance to comment before updating the details of their case.
The plaintiff’s legal team was then forced to file an application to include Prince Harry’s claims of a “secret deal” in their evidence, which was challenged by NGN.
The court must decide today whether the evidence will be allowed, when Grant, who also watched via video link, is expected to be present. Mr Sherborne said ‘inevitable filming commitments’ meant the actor was unable to appear in person for the first two days.
He said Prince Harry is expected to attend another phone hacking action against the Mirror group, but was unable to make the “arrangements” to attend the case in person.
Harry is now fighting three legal battles against three media groups, all of the alleged illegal activity being used to attack him in the name of journalism.
Last month he appeared in person for his case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, with a judge currently considering whether to allow that case to a full trial.
NGN has previously settled a number of claims since the phone hacking scandal broke involving News of the World, which closed in 2011, but has consistently denied that any illegal information gathering took place at The Sun.