Prince Harry is set to go where scores of other public figures who accused Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloid newspapers of phone hacking have not: take on the financial risk of challenging his media empire at trial.
Barring a last-minute deal to end the case, the Duke of Sussex will take his fight against News Group Newspapers to London’s High Court this week alongside the only other remaining claimant, Labour’s former deputy leader Lord Tom Watson.
Almost every other alleged victim of unlawful activity by the publisher, including Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, has agreed to drop their claims — prompting critics of the English courts’ settlement system to complain that deep-pocketed defendants can use it to stop damaging allegations being tested.
If they press ahead with the trial, due to begin on Tuesday, the remaining claimants will be assuming substantial financial risk. Winners of civil cases can, based on the level of damages awarded, find themselves in the position of having to pay the other side’s legal bills even if the court has ruled unequivocally in their favour, depending on the terms of any prior settlement offer that has been rejected.
For the prince, however, “it’s not about money, because he’s got plenty. I would think he can stand the financial risk,” said Colin Campbell, a consultant at law firm Kain Knight and a former costs judge.
“It’s a fight about reputation, and to get to the truth as he sees it.”
A historic courtroom showdown threatens to bring back to the fore damaging claims about the behaviour of the British press, which have faded from public view more than a decade since the closure of the NGN’s News of the World tabloid.
Yet for King Charles’ younger son appearing in court will also bring unwelcome attention about the past.
At a pre-trial hearing, lawyers for NGN, which owns The Sun, said they would need up to four days for “an extensive cross-examination” of the prince about the articles he claims to have resulted from unlawful information gathering. The Duke of Sussex’s lawyers have argued that one and a half days would be sufficient.
The prince is familiar with the witness box, though, having become the first senior royal since the 19th century to give evidence in court when he testified in 2023 in a similar case against Mirror Group Newspapers.
He went on to win damages of £140,600. Ruling on that case a year ago, the presiding judge found that phone hacking had been “an important tool” for Mirror publications and was even employed during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards that started in 2011.
Victory against the publisher of The Sun would be a greater prize for the prince.
Any financial losses of NGN arising from the case would be covered by Murdoch’s US broadcaster Fox under the terms of a separation deal between News Corp and 21st Century Fox. Yet much is at stake reputationally for NGN.
The company has apologised to victims of voicemail interception at the News of the World, which it closed in 2011 after it was disclosed that its journalists had hacked the voicemail of murdered teenager Milly Dowler.
It has since paid more than £1bn in settlements and legal costs, but has never admitted to any claims against News of the World stablemate, The Sun.
“One of the reasons why I brought the claim . . . is specifically for truth and accountability,” the prince told the New York Times DealBook Summit last month.
Alongside Watson, the Duke of Sussex has accused the publisher of “endemic, large-scale” unlawful information gathering, including impersonation or deception — known as “blagging” — to obtain personal information.
They also claim the company “deliberately concealed such wrongdoing” and “destroyed relevant documents”.
“The goal is accountability — it’s really that simple,” the prince said at the conference. “The scale of the cover-up is so large people need to see it for themselves.”
While he recognised the allegations of phone hacking and other unlawful activity had been made years ago, he said cover-up claims were “relatively new. I think that will be the piece that shocks the world.”
Watson claimed in court documents to have been a target for unlawful activities by the publisher because of his former role on the parliamentary culture, media and sport select committee when it was investigating media malpractice.
NGN is fighting the case. The company said it “strongly denies that any of its titles hacked Watson or acted unlawfully and will also argue his claim is brought out of time”.
They added that the Duke of Sussex’s allegations of mobile phone hacking have been struck out by the court so will not be part of the trial.
“His claim focuses now on allegations of unlawful information gathering by enquiry agents and alleged private investigators instructed by NGN journalists mainly in the early 2000s. His claim will be fully defended, including on the grounds that it is brought out of time.”
Both claimants allege unlawful destruction of emails by News International between 2010 and 2011, NGN said. “This allegation is wrong, unsustainable and is strongly denied. NGN will be calling a number of witnesses including technologists, lawyers and senior staff to defeat the claim.”
Campbell said most claimants would have insurance to cover their opponent’s costs if they lose.
However, he noted, it is a typical condition of such policies that if settlement offers are rejected against legal advice then cover is withdrawn from that point onwards.
Successful claimants who decline offers to settle may as a result be on the hook for costs not already incurred if the damages awarded by the judge are lower than the proposed settlement sum. Covering a legal bill in a case as complex as this threatens to be ruinously expensive.
After Grant reached his settlement last year, the actor said he did not want to accept the company’s offer but was in effect forced to do so.
“Even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10mn in costs,” he said at the time. “I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.”
Miller similarly settled at the end of 2021 despite claiming that The Sun had “very nearly ruined my life”. Full legal recourse was not available to anyone without “countless of millions of pounds”, she said.
Several politicians, including Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, and Sir Norman Lamb, the former Liberal Democrat MP, are among the other public figures to settle with NGN.
The civil procedure rules are designed to prevent protracted and avoidable legal battles. But critics contend that the system allows well-resourced defendants to in effect buy their way out of damaging claims.
“There is no justice for any of the claimants,” Harry said at the summit.
Evan Harris, former director of campaign group Hacked Off, who is now a research consultant to the claimants, said there was a role for a settlement mechanism to prevent unnecessary burdens being imposed on the courts.
However, he called for reform so that in cases of significant public interest “a claimant seeking admissions or findings of fact is not forced to settle”.
“It’s wrong that a very deep-pocketed corporation can choose to deny any liability and use its wealth to avoid the truth coming out for decades.”
Read the full article here