The Duke of Sussex, however, failed to present any substantial evidence to support his story, leaving his case in a state of contradiction.
During the court proceedings, a barrister representing the newspaper accused Harry of attempting to navigate conflicting narratives, likening it to trying to ride two horses galloping in opposite directions.
Prince Harry initiated the hacking case against his son's publisher, GN, back in 2019. Earlier this year, the publisher, vehemently denying the allegations, argued that the case should be dismissed due to the Duke and Duchess' prolonged delay in commencing legal proceedings.
It was pointed out that they waited six years after becoming aware of the potential legal matter before initiating a civil claim.
In response to this argument, Harry claimed that the reason for the delay was a secret agreement orchestrated by Palace aides and newspaper executives. According to him, he discovered this supposed agreement in 2012, wherein the Royals agreed to wait for other ongoing phone hacking cases to conclude before discreetly admitting or settling his claims, without any public fanfare.
Harry's barrister, David Sherborn, further stated that the late Queen was involved in discussions and authorized the secret agreement, thereby preventing Harry from pursuing a claim against the publisher for phone hacking during that period.
During today's hearing, the court aimed to determine whether Prince Harry could rely on his claims regarding the secret agreement or not. Representing the publisher, Anthony Hudson disputed the existence of any such agreement, emphasizing that no one, including Harry himself, seemed to possess any knowledge about it.
Hudson pointed out the lack of evidence regarding when the agreement was made or which individuals within the palace or institution, as Harry referred to it, were involved in this significant arrangement. He described it as bizarre and inexplicable that Harry had failed to gather any evidence despite having years and months to do so.
The barrister also highlighted that Harry had not even approached the palace or its former solicitors to inquire about the agreement, which he found staggering.
In a scathing remark, Hudson criticized Harry's lawyers for targeting newspaper executives who were not even working at the publication in 2012.
He described the secret agreement claims as "Alice in Wonderland stuff," insinuating that it was a constructed narrative conceived by Harry's legal team as a contingency plan when they realized their case might be in jeopardy.
These developments have raised doubts and concerns within the High Court. During the April hearing, Mr. Justice Mann expressed his skepticism regarding Harry's claims, questioning how the Duke could simultaneously assert that he lacked knowledge before 2019 to initiate a claim while also contending that he was prevented from doing so in 2012. The judge noted what appeared to be factual inconsistencies within Harry's case, leaving the court troubled by the matter.
As the legal battle continues, Prince Harry finds himself facing mounting challenges in substantiating his allegations against the publisher. The court proceedings have shed light on the lack of concrete evidence supporting his claims of a secret agreement, leaving his case hanging in the balance.
