Harry claims that the royal family did not provide him with information about phone hacking by other tabloids, and he refers to "the Institution" to describe the inner workings of Buckingham Palace. He said that it was made clear to him that the royal family did not want to sit in the witness box because that could open up a can of worms. However, the publisher's lawyer argued that the case should be thrown out because Harry didn't file it soon enough, and the six-year limitation period had passed.
Harry, who has several lawsuits against the news media, has vowed to make reforming the British tabloids his life's work. He has accused the press of hounding his wife, Meghan, and blames the overly aggressive press for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, in 1997. Although Harry said he was aware of some news from the phone hacking scandal, he hadn't realized for years how friends and associates were targeted. His decision to take a more aggressive approach came "in the wake of vicious persistent attacks on, harassment of, and intrusive, sometimes racist articles concerning Meghan."
The phone hacking scandal, which dates back to 1993, led to the UK's 2012 Leveson inquiry, which examined lawbreaking by the British press and resulted in criminal convictions of several journalists and private investigators. Harry, who attended the first two days of the High Court hearing, was absent on Wednesday. The lawsuit is set to conclude on Thursday.
Harry was thrilled with the arrest of an editor and was reportedly in good spirits over the downfall of News of the World, the popular Sunday newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch. The editor was considered a leading figure in the hacking scandal.
Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, is seeking summary judgment to win the case without a trial. The publisher is also seeking to strike much of the evidence on which the claims are based.
Beltrami, the lawyer representing Associated Newspapers, argued that the ledgers, which show how much private investigators were paid, were turned over to the 2012 Leveson inquiry under a confidentiality agreement and thus could not be used as evidence in court.
However, attorney David Sherborne, who represents Harry and other well-known claimants, argued that the documents were presumed to be public unless marked confidential. He further argued that many of the documents had been used for investigative news articles about unlawful reporting practices by Associated Newspapers.
