As I understand it, over 100 people, including actors, sports stars, celebrities, and people with connections to those individuals, are claiming. Out of all these claims, four were chosen as big representatives.
The other three were British soap actors Michael Lavelle and Nikki Whiteman, and Fiona Whiteman, ex-wife of British comedian Paul Whitehouse.
So why not include a more globally known personality? Harry met barrister David Sherburne at Elton John's in the south of France in 2019. According to sparse information, Sherburne knew more about the phone hacking scandal than anyone Harry had ever met. Of course, David would know, as he had previously acted for eight other people in another phone hacking claim against the Mirror Group in 2015.
From what I can tell, it was at that time that the expression "industrial scale" was used in relation to phone hacking. So maybe when Harry said on the second day of testimony, "I believe that phone hacking was on an industrial scale," he had been fed that line.
Anyhow, according to the sparse information available, Sherburne shared his expertise with Harry. When Harry said he wished he could do that but had been blocked at every turn by the palace, Sherburne said, "Why not hire your own lawyer?" Ka-ching! So now the world's media is focused on the first royal to testify in court since 1891. Maximum exposure for Sherburne and his case.
And was Harry a good representative of someone whose private information had been unlawfully obtained? You decide, Andrew Green KC for the Mirror Group. Are you aware of any evidence that gives any indication whatsoever as to the extent to which you were hacked, if at all?
Prince Harry: No, that's part of the reason why I'm here, my Lord.
Harry's lawyers would have analyzed the evidence for hacking. So, if Harry isn't aware whether or not he'd been hacked, why was he there? As far as I can tell, Green KC's cross-examination took 1.5 days. I've seen it described as 7.5 hours. Sherburne's was 0.5 days. Draw your own conclusions.
A few more points need to be cleared up. Harry's case is almost certainly selected because of the cultural memory of Diana and the intrusion of the press into it. Like when a spy camera was hidden on equipment at the gym she attended to take a photo of her while working out. While Harry cannot prove that his phone was hacked, the interference could be inferred from the massive stories. It would be extraordinary if it hadn't.
The burden of proof is lower in the civil court; it just has to be on the balance of probability, but not beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, I doubt that Harry has successfully evidenced his claim beyond his own beliefs.
To me, it seems optimistic, even on the balance of probabilities, to hope to prove a case by inviting influences that, because it happened to Harry's mother, it must be more likely to have happened to him. My assumption was that Harry's highly experienced legal team would have been aware that his case isn't the strongest out of the 100 plus other claimants. So why him?
Harry will not have been fed lines by his legal team because that is in breach of the Bar Council code of practice. If Harry uses the same phrase as Sherburne, it is likely to be because he heard it and doesn't have the imagination to come up with something different. Harry is like a biased confirmation sponge; he soaks up anything that helps bolster his own rather paranoid view of the world. Sherburne is far too smart to risk his career for Harry. He's not likely to prove that lucrative in the future.
I'm certainly not suggesting that Harry's legal team coached him in his evidence, merely remarking on the happy coincidence of the use of that phrase. Your view is as good as any. I'd imagine that might have come up in conversation with Sherburne.
The reason that Green's cross-examination was so much longer than the time Sherburne spent was that the evidence in chief was written in the witness statement given by Harry. Defamation cases do not use live evidence from the plaintiff.
Wouldn't Sherburne have spent time with Harry to make recoveries from his evidence? From media reports, it appears that Harry's evidence wasn't the strongest, which would have been clear to his legal team when assessing claims.
No, there is no need for any of the plaintiffs to be world-famous. Paul Whitehouse is very well known in the UK, but his ex-wife is not and never has been a celebrity. If there is evidence that her phone was hacked, then she's a good fit for this test case.
The cross-examination was elegantly brutal. Harry may be able to bully and bluster, but in the face of someone saying, "With respect, Your Highness, that's horseshit," he had nothing. Possibly, the reason Harry's case came first was because he pushed so hard for it. He said how much he wanted to have his day in court, and we all know how bullheaded he is. Harry doesn't want a payout; if he did, he'd have settled this like his brother did.
He's on some revenge mission for Meghan, even though the stories published were years before she was on the scene. Maybe his team felt that his commitment would carry it. Had he stayed with the palace legal team, they would have put him back in his box.
The evidence throughout these cases is built on the stories published and the claim that they must have come from hacked messages. It seems like Harry has told his team that there was only one way that the stories could have made it into the press, and that was by hacking. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. What I don't understand is why, if you think your messages are being listened to, do you not change your settings? Or is that too generous? The story of him being injured when he was at Sandhurst seemed to have a much more obvious source than hacking.
He was apparently getting lighter duties than others, so it wouldn't have been a surprise that someone there was pissed off that Harry was skating it. And I'm damn sure some of his classmates thought he was a stupid, crass, spoiled excuse for a Sandhurst student and would happily have sold the story for a pint of lager.
What surprises me is that this is being heard even though the case is far past the usual cut-off date. They are all, to some extent, fishing exercises. The main hacking cases were brought years ago, and these people would have known as soon as the stories were published that they had a case. The whole exercise seems to be scraping the last drags out of the hacking barrel. I won't condemn any barrister for doing their job, but I'll happily condemn a vexatious litigant who wants it all their way.
