The Duke of Sussex’s claim over allegations of unlawful information gathering against the publisher of the Sun will go ahead to a trial, following a London high court ruling.
Prince Harry alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, and has launched a claim for damages.
At a hearing in April, NGN asked Mr Justice Fancourt to throw out Prince Harry’s case, arguing it was brought too late because he should have known sooner he had a potential claim.
In a ruling on Thursday, the judge concluded that Prince Harry cannot bring his claim relating to phone hacking, but that his claim over other allegations – including use of private investigators – should go ahead to a trial which is due to take place in January next year.
The judge also refused to allow Prince Harry to rely on an alleged “secret agreement” between the royal family and senior executives working for media mogul Rupert Murdoch as part of his claim.
A spokesperson for NGN said after the ruling that the judge had “dismissed” Prince Harry’s phone hacking claims against its two titles in a “significant victory” for the publisher, adding that the judgment “substantially reduces the scope of his legal claim”.
In his written ruling, the judge concluded: “I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the duke proving at trial that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered facts that would show that he had a worthwhile claim for voicemail interception in relation to each of the News of the World and the Sun.
“He already knew that in relation to the News of the World, and he could easily have found out by making basic inquiries that he was likely to have a similar claim in relation to articles published by the Sun.”
The judge also said that “there is no evidence currently before me” that Prince Harry knew at least six years before he issued his claim “that NGN had done anything other than hack his mobile phone, at the News of the World”.
“Knowing or being on notice of a worthwhile claim for voicemail interception does not of itself amount to knowledge or notice of a worthwhile claim for other forms of (unlawful information gathering),” he added.
The judge said a trial should determine whether Prince Harry’s claim over other unlawful information gathering was brought within the six-year time limit for such claims.
Prince Harry’s lawyers previously argued that NGN’s challenge to his claim was an attempt to go behind the alleged “secret agreement”, between the royal family as an institution and the publisher, which Prince Harry was told of in 2012.
They said that, while he was aware of unlawful activity in around 2012, Prince Harry had no reason to think it had taken place at the Sun, and was prevented from bringing a claim because of the alleged agreement.
But NGN, which denies any unlawful activity took place at the Sun, disputed that such an agreement was in place.
Mr Justice Fancourt said in his ruling that Prince Harry had not “provided any evidence from those in the palace who would have been aware of a secret agreement if there was one”.
He said he was unable to conclude that there was “a sufficiently plausible evidential basis” for a case based on the alleged agreement to justify Prince Harry amending his claim against NGN.
The judge said the “lack of credibility” over the alleged agreement came from “the improbability of a secret agreement being made” in the terms claimed; the “inconsistency” in Prince Harry’s case and “the absence of any other witness or documentary evidence to support it”.
At a hearing in London earlier this month, lawyers for Prince Harry said there was evidence to support the existence of the agreement, including emails between senior executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned parent companies of NGN and palace staff in 2017 and 2018. - PA