Prince Harry versus the Mirror– Allegations of Phone Hacking and Doubts Cast on Royal’s Evidence
When Prince Harry takes the stand in the Mirror phone-hacking trial on Tuesday, it will mark a historic moment as the first time a senior royal has been cross-examined in court since the 19th century. However, based on the preceding events of the trial, it appears that the prince is unlikely to find the experience pleasant.
Prince Harry is set to make allegations against journalists, claiming they engaged in phone hacking. However, the publisher, in response, will attempt to undermine the credibility of the royal’s evidence.
In this high-profile case, Harry versus the Mirror, Prince Harry will accuse journalists from The Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and People of employing illegal methods, including phone hacking, to gather stories about him. In response, Mirror Group Newspapers, the publisher at the center of the trial, will attempt to cast doubt on the prince’s evidence, raising questions about his reliability and the delayed timing of his decision to bring the case forward.
The Duke of Sussex will undergo cross-examination regarding articles featuring headlines like “Harry is a Chelsy fan” and “Hooray Harry’s dumped.” This process will require him to openly revisit the dissolution of his relationship with his ex-girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, while under oath in a witness box and observed by the global media.
Additionally, inquiries are expected to focus on his association with the former editor of the Mirror, Piers Morgan. Harry’s legal team claims that Morgan had “definite involvement and awareness” of unlawful activities, an allegation that Morgan denies.
Harry versus the Mirror, the Prince Will Confront the Mirror’s Barrister Andrew Green
In the courtroom clash between Harry and the Mirror’s barrister, Andrew Green, emerges as the leading force tasked with discrediting a royalty member. His unique role as a king’s counsel employed to challenge a king’s son adds an intriguing twist to the proceedings.
During earlier stages of the trial, Green seized the opportunity to bring up witnesses’ prior drug use, levied accusations of fabricated evidence, and suggested that Harry and his co-claimants were tarnishing the Mirror’s board by insinuating their involvement in a high-level cover-up of phone hacking.
The upcoming revelation of whether Green is willing to employ such tactics against the prince, and how Harry copes with it, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, this inherent risk is one that Harry willingly undertook by initiating this legal battle. In return, he gains the right to directly make allegations against the journalists whom he holds responsible for his deteriorating mental health and the tragic demise of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.
Prince Harry Shatters the Royal Family’s “Never Complain, Never Explain” Rule
For years, the royal family adhered to a steadfast mantra of “never complain, never explain” rule concerning their approach to the media and the courts. Relations with the press were carefully managed behind closed doors, and the royal family members were shielded from courtroom confrontations. The closest they came to legal proceedings was in 2002 when Princess Anne pleaded guilty to an offense under the dangerous dogs act.
However, in the ‘Harry versus the Mirror’ case, the Prince has shattered this long-standing rule. He openly expresses his deep disdain for the tabloids, resulting in him taking legal action against nearly every major British national newspaper’s parent company, except for the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and the Financial Times.
In previous court filings, Harry has explicitly stated that he sees this battle as a crusade against the media, one he undertakes not only for himself but for others as well. He is appalled by how the rest of his family prioritizes maintaining good relations with the tabloids instead of actively working towards reforming the British press. The prince alleges that King Charles prioritized positive coverage of Queen Camilla over initiating systemic change. Furthermore, he claims that Prince William received a secret phone-hacking settlement from Rupert Murdoch’s News UK in 2020, speculated to be valued at around £1 million.
In Harry’s quest for justice, he not only challenges the media’s practices but also challenges the traditional norms within the royal family itself.
While the media has predominantly centered its coverage around Prince Harry, the ongoing Mirror phone-hacking trial encompasses a much broader scope, involving over 100 claimants. Notable figures like the singer Cheryl and the estate of George Michael are among those involved in this extensive litigation.
The initial stages of the trial have delved into the larger issue of illicit practices conducted by the Mirror’s publisher. Explosive allegations of high-ranking cover-ups have emerged, implying that the board was aware of and concealing instances of phone hacking perpetrated by its journalists.
What Will Happen in the Second Half of ‘Harry versus the Mirror’ Trial?
The second phase of the trial, set to extend until the end of June, focuses on the meticulous examination of four distinct claims made by individuals – Prince Harry, Coronation Street actors Michael Turner and Nikki Sanderson, and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse. Prince Harry fly from California to witness the presentation of his case on Monday, followed by cross-examination on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Acknowledging wrongdoing in one instance, the Mirror has admitted that its journalists unlawfully employed a private investigator to gather information regarding Harry’s nightclub visit. However, the publication asserts that most of the other articles were sourced through conventional means, such as payments to club staff for gossip or direct briefings from King Charles’ aides.
The Mirror denies any evidence of voicemail hacking targeting Prince Harry. While this discrepancy captures less attention, it holds significant importance for the judge. The Mirror contends that the claims were filed beyond the stipulated timeframe since individuals have six years from the date of discovering they were victims of a crime to initiate a case in the civil court system. The publication argues that Harry’s legal action was initiated after an unjustifiable delay.