It was a day Prince Harry has spent more than three years preparing for, the chance to finally confront his nemesis — Britain’s mighty Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) owned by the 4th Viscount Rothermere, a media organisation that has been a thorn in his side for as long as the 41-year-old royal can remember.
The highly successful publisher speaks to middle England through its newspapers the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday and to a younger global “clickbait” audience through its constantly expanding MailOnline digital site.
In the long build-up many wondered if there might be a last minute settlement, but neither side was blinking, both defiant, sabres drawn.
And so last Monday the trial unpicking the legality of historic journalistic practices began. It’s expected to stretch out for nine weeks with Harry one of seven angry complainants.
The case is being heard at London’s High Court and is expected to take up to nine weeks. (AP: Alastair Grant)
For the Duke of Sussex this case isn’t just about protecting his own family, though that is surely a key motivator, it’s about proving that the “never complain, never explain” business model that the royal “institution” traditionally adopts, is — as far as the Prince is concerned — inherently flawed.
As an aggrieved private individual Harry is showing he can, and he believes he must, fight back. Even if “the Firm” won’t support him in his endeavour and financial costs run into tens of millions of dollars — which by the way, they are.
An emotionally charged stand-off
The venue is court 76 in London’s High Court, and this emotionally charged stand-off is the third and final legal battle for the former working royal who sensationally quit his regal day job to set up home in California with his wife and family in 2020.
Journalists are packed to the rafters. The prince would recognise many of them from the royal rota he so despises. And while the court is closed, with no cameras, every word and gesture is reported in real time on live blogs. Modern media in action.
The opportunity from Harry’s viewpoint to score a crucial line in the sand, is something he sees as a civic duty, to fight for privacy rights not just for him but for all, to demand a new world order of responsible reporting.
Harry the crusader, a prince in shining armour, out to “slay dragons”.
Yes…this is part of it. But always lurking in the background is Harry the angry young man who blames incessant media harassment for his mother’s death, his and brother Prince William’s troubled childhood. Harry also blames the media for the breakdown of his own romances, his wife’s traumatic experiences living in Britain and the continued attacks on his family by what he sees as a morally bankrupt tabloid media.
Prince Harry’s mother, Diana, was hounded by photographers every time she left the house. (Reuters)
The suggestion from the UK media that as a senior royal he has no inherent right to privacy he says is “disgusting”.
ANL sees it rather differently of course. The publisher vehemently denies allegations of unlawful news gathering involving the suggested use of blagging, listening devices and criminal impersonation. They are “preposterous” ANL states. Their scribes were simply employing robust journalistic practices, hunting down leads and talking to sources, which for Harry’s stories allegedly came from his own social circle — a somewhat “leaky” bunch” as described by the Daily Mail’s barrister, Antony White QC.
The prince may not have liked what he saw in print, but their reporting was legitimate White explained, the sources — albeit unnamed in the articles — credible, the stories in the public interest.
Harry disagrees. He says some detail printed was completely fictitious — that he didn’t use a “Mr Mischief” moniker on Facebook was one example given. And the damaging effect of all those column inches devoted to his private life he described as devastating.
The deeply personal details revealed, known to a tiny number of trusted close family and friends, left him “paranoid” and “terrified for his loved ones”. The prince felt his “every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it”.
Harry says intrusion by media and paparazzi has affected him throughout life. (Supplied: Netflix)
Harry is joined by six high profile figures
The veracity of that defence will continue to be tested as the trial rolls out over the coming weeks.
Since this is a civil trial Harry’s fate will be decided by one person alone, Mr Justice Nicklin, and proving the alleged use of private investigators and unlawful listening devices will be right at the heart of the matter.
The claimants’ barrister, David Sherbourne QC, may have a mountain to climb in that regard not least because the PI on whom much of the case originally relied now claims his statement was a forgery, his signature falsified.
But the fact that Harry stands alongside six other high profile figures, ranging from actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, to music demi-god Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, a campaigner whose son Stephen Lawrence was murdered in a racist attack in south London in 1993, surely strengthens the case.
Solidarity for ‘horrible experience’
Prince Harry was the first of the seven to appear in the witness box last Wednesday (UK time), his two hours of questioning much shorter than expected, seen as a tactic by Harry’s team.
But it didn’t dampen the royal’s resolve. It was a stormy and peevish showdown and the prince was gently admonished by Justice Nicklin for seeking to argue his case too vociferously. That was for his barrister to do, Nicklin advised. As a claimant, the Duke of Sussex’s role was to simply answer the questions put to him with — no flourishes, no asides.
But how could he?
Harry simply wanted the Justice to “have an idea of what it is like living in this world…under 24-hour surveillance” he said.
The royal concluded with a monologue, his voice cracking, tears in his eyes. “They have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my Lord…Through the course of this litigation, it’s only got worse, not better,” he added. “It’s fundamentally wrong to put all of us through all of this again. What’s required is an apology and some accountability. It’s a horrible experience.”
Many thought after his appearance Harry would hotfoot it back to his family in Montecito, but the following day he returned to court to support a teary Elizabeth Hurley, who was next on the stand. A spokesperson said the prince was determined “to show solidarity”.
But will it bring peace?
To have a royal in court is unusual. Prior to Harry’s flurry of litigation over the past years, the last royal to actually appear in person in court was Edward VII more than a century ago. But while Harry’s hot-headed actions have ruffled royal feathers with his father King Charles III staying well away — last week he was in Scotland — so far Harry’s been pretty successful taking on the press.
In December 2023, he won 15 claims in his case accusing Mirror Group Newspapers of unlawfully gathering information for stories published about him and was awarded £140,600 in damages.
In January last year Harry settled a claim against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun and now-defunct News of the World and won “substantial damages” and an apology for unlawful intrusion into his life.
So, can this ultimate campaign bring closure and even peace to the suffering former heir to the spare? Perhaps.
Whatever the outcome Harry has been heard on the world stage. He’s literally had his day in court.
As for toning down the tenure of media reporting on his family, that is an entirely different contest.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.abc.net.au ’
