The court heard the opening arguments from both sides before Prince Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, spoke to argue his case. In an extraordinary intervention, he told the judge that Associated Newspapers was not someone “who can be trusted with private information.” He then presented evidence of a series of articles published by The Daily Mail or its sister publications which relied on confidential sources and revealed personal details about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex without their consent. In response to this powerful argument, Lord Justice Mann clarified that he found no fault in Prince Harry’s legal action when ordering additional documents from Associated Newspapers. With Prince Harry’s presence at court and Sherborne’s tough stance against reporters invading privacy, it is clear that this issue will remain a priority for the couple during what they have promised will be their first year out of public life together.
Harry’s legal team had asked the judge to allow him video-link in, but the request was denied when Associated Newspapers objected. The Duke reportedly wanted to express himself directly so he could make clear his moral outrage at their conduct and push for a just outcome that would extend beyond simply monetary damages. At issue is a series of articles published by the Daily Mail in early 2020 that Harry claims were illegally obtained through phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information. It’s thought that this may be one of many such lawsuits brought forward by Harry as part of a greater effort to hold media outlets accountable for using unethical means to get stories. Given all this, it’s not surprising he wanted to appear in court today – as it sent an important message about how seriously these allegations are being taken.
The claimants allege they were victims of “unjustified and baseless” intrusion into their lives. They argue the purpose was merely to generate headlines rather than serve any legitimate public interest. As a result, Harry and his fellows are claiming damages for misuse of private information, breach of data protection laws and violation of human rights. Their suit also claims that Associated Newspapers willfully failed to abide by legal requirements imposed by police on journalists who handle leaked material or confidential sources. Furthermore, the claimants assert there was no justification under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights for such privacy intrusions as those revealed in this case. Thus far, the UK’s High Court is sympathetic towards their plight—a big boost for anyone hoping for proper media accountability in England.
Whether the Sussexes are to blame for the breakdown in relations with the royals has been a sticking point since their seismic Megxit announcement earlier this year when they said they were standing down as senior working members of the Royal Family. The couple has always maintained that they feel wronged by their experience within Buckingham Palace and sometimes claim that events have been manipulated by palace aides, although these claims remain unsubstantiated. As such, it appears unlikely to be any reconciliation between Harry and his former royal family soon.