Why Prince Harry is Taking a British Tabloid to Court

By Kayleigh Donaldson | Celebrity | June 7, 2023 |

By Kayleigh Donaldson | Celebrity | June 7, 2023 |

Prince Harry is making history this week by becoming the first senior member of the British Royal Family to give evidence in open court for 130 years. The Duke of Sussex is suing the newspaper publisher the Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over claims that they routinely hacked his phones and unlawfully gathered information about him for stories over a large portion of his life. The MGN denies the claims, although they have already issued an apology to Harry over one instance of unlawful information gathering, for which they say the Prince’s legal challenge ‘warrants compensation.’

The phone hacking scandal has been a shadow over the British media for well over a decade. In July 2011 it was revealed that various figures of note had had their mobile phone messages hacked, including that of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and victims of the 2007 London bombing. A public inquiry began, with plans to look into the wider culture and ethics of the British newspaper industry. Arrests were made but little came in terms of conviction. While the Murdoch-owned newspaper News of the World closed as a result, nobody has really taken responsibility for what happened. Even Rupert Murdoch, ever a bastion of decency, said that investigators’ claims against his companies were ‘totally incompetent’ and that his papers were just acting as ‘part of the culture of Fleet Street.’

Prior to this, the press had already faced a phone hacking scandal pertaining to the British Royal family. In 2005, the News of the World published an article claiming that Prince William had borrowed a portable editing suite from ITV correspondent Tom Bradby. A Met Police investigation revealed that the information had come from voicemails that had likely been accessed by Clive Goodman, then the paper’s royal editor, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator. Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested and charged with hacking the telephones of members of the royal family by accessing voicemail messages. Murdoch’s team claims this was merely a case of one bad apple and not a widespread toxicity at the paper.

Prince Harry’s case focuses on 148 articles published between 1996 and 2010. He alleges that various stories about his life could only have been obtained via illegal measures. This includes stories about his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy, his time at Eton as a teenager, and his childhood following his parents’ divorce. In his witness statement, Harry told the court, ‘as a schoolboy and from his career in the army and as a young adult he was subjected, it was clear, to the most intrusive methods of obtaining his personal information.’ His statement, which totals 55 pages, is pretty scathing towards the British tabloids, aiming at photographers who stalked him worldwide and made it impossible for him to have a serious relationship. He said:

‘Tabloids would routinely publish articles about me that were often wrong but interspersed with snippets of truth. This created an alternative and distorted version of me to the general public - the people I had to serve and interact with as a member of the Royal Family - to the point where any one of the thousands of people that I met or was introduced to on any given day, could easily have gone: ‘You know what, you’re an idiot. I’ve read all the stories about you and now I’m going to stab you.’

As of the writing of this piece, Harry is currently in the docket facing questioning from the MGN’s lawyer, Andrew Green. Their case is that all of the information they acquired about Harry came from lawful means, meaning it came from sources who willingly handed it over. Green’s job is to methodically go through every story submitted as evidence by Harry’s team and prove that it likely came from a means other than hacking or illegally used private investigators. Harry himself has already responded to the claims that stories came from ‘pals’ of his, adding that attributing information to a friend or family member ‘is a particular hallmark of phone hacking.’

He also took aim at Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror and enduring stain on the face of humanity, saying that he and his wife Meghan had been subjected to ‘horrific personal attacks’ from him.

It’s an incredibly risky move for Harry to not only take this case to court but give evidence in-person. Royals tend to avoid responding to the British press in any manner, aside from their usual ‘sources’. As Harry noted in prior interviews, the royals and the tabloids have a co-dependent relationship and messing with that is ill-advised. Even for major celebrities, going against the press is tough. Many celebrities have alleged being victims not only of phone hacking but general intrusion and harassment from reporters and photographers. Hugh Grant, who is set to sue the News Group Newspapers, who publish The Sun, has long been vocal in accusing the press of hacking his voicemails. In 2021, Sienna Miller formally settled a case against News Group Newspapers, with a sizeable payout that her lawyers said was ‘tantamount’ to an admission of guilt. Miller said that The Sun targeted medical records about her 2005 pregnancy, which ‘brutally took away her choice’ over her reproductive freedom. She also said that she had wanted to take the case to a full trial but that option was not available to people without ‘countless millions.’

That’s a key point here. The British press is highly monied and lawyered to the teeth, no doubt aided by the way that the English libel laws bolster the accused more than the accuser. Even A-List actors don’t have the required cash, which can easily go into eight figures. Harry is doing this as a private citizen too, with no palace protection. It’ll be a tough case to win because MGN will push the narrative that every story about him was written through legal means (except that one they’ve already apologized for.) One of the reasons the big inquiry of a decade ago fell so flat was because plausible deniability is a hell of a drug. In the interim years, the British press hasn’t exactly gotten less toxic either. Just look at the coverage of Harry’s wife for proof of that. They are still dogged in their pursuit of private information of celebrities and private citizens alike. Remember how the Daily Mail got their hands of the birth certificate of Rihanna’s son? They did that legally but it didn’t make it any less intrusive.

The UK tabloids have long been overdue a reckoning, and it would be good if it happens with this case, as well as others being pursued by various figures like Grant. I cannot help but remain sceptical, however. Prince Harry is hardly a David here but the press is a Goliath on another level. Taking down bullies is often easier said than done, especially when their lawyers are as well-paid as these ones.