Mr. Justice Fancourt, presiding over the case against MGN, made this comment while listening to the closing speech of the Duke's barrister on Wednesday.
The judge emphasized the importance of specific examples of voicemail interception as evidence in Prince Harry's case
This revelation follows accusations that Harry fabricated his witnesses. According to a source, he allegedly paid around 148 individuals to pose as fake witnesses in the phone hacking case.
In response, Mr. Sherborne, representing the Duke, pointed to Harry's witness statement, noting that when discussing the articles, he did mention on several occasions that it was private material being discussed. The barrister acknowledged that recalling specific voicemails after 20 years is challenging.
On Tuesday, MGN's lawyers accused Prince Harry of suing tabloid newspapers as part of his crusade to reform the British media, without presenting any evidence to support his claims. During the barrister's closing speech on Wednesday morning, the judge urged him to provide specific examples of voicemail interception leading to articles about the Duke in the Mirror's titles.
Criticism mounted against Harry for his failure to present any specific examples of phone hacking or voicemail interception. Mr. Sherborne cited Harry's witness statement, mentioning discussions between him and his brother about Mr. Burl as one example.
He argued that it is unrealistic to expect detailed recollection of specific voicemails after such a long time. The claimants, including Harry, explain in their witness statements how the information discussed in voicemails is relevant to their cases.
Prince Harry also questioned how the newspaper could have known his whereabouts after being photographed entering a nightclub following his breakup with Chelsea Davey. He emphasized that it was not something he discussed regularly in public.
In response, Mr. Green, representing MGN, stated that Prince Harry should bring forth evidence instead of playing the victim card.
Turning to Prince Harry's claim against MGN, Mr. Green argued in his closing statement that it is entirely speculative and lacks evidence.
He noted that Prince Harry's claim aimed to seek reform of the British media, while the other claimants had different objectives. Mr. Green emphasized the absence of any evidence that Prince Harry's phone had ever been hacked, even once, over a 16-year period.
During the trial, Prince Harry appeared to struggle, admitting "I don't know" 18 times and "I don't remember" nine times in response to intense questioning. Mr. Green suggested that Prince Harry should be awarded just £500 in damages at the conclusion of the trial.
The Duke of Sussex seeks over £200,000 in damages over allegations of being a victim of illegal activities by journalists. The trial is expected to conclude on Friday, with a judgment anticipated in the following months.
