Prince Harry stands accused of deliberately destroying critical evidence in his ongoing lawsuit against News Group Newspapers (NGN). This …
Prince Harry stands accused of deliberately destroying critical evidence in his ongoing lawsuit against News Group Newspapers (NGN). This high-profile case, centered on allegations of unlawful information gathering and privacy invasion by the tabloid press, has recently intensified with these serious accusations.
Anthony Hudson KC, representing NGN, leveled the accusations at London’s High Court. Hudson claimed that Prince Harry intentionally wiped text messages and other communications with J.R. Moehringer, the ghostwriter of his bestselling memoir “Spare.” The messages, exchanged via the Signal app, were allegedly deleted prior to the book’s publication.
“We say it’s shocking and extraordinary that the claimant has deliberately destroyed…,” Hudson began before being interrupted by Mr. Justice Fancourt, who cautioned that the situation was not entirely clear.
The accusations against Prince Harry include the alleged destruction of emails, text messages, and WhatsApp messages sought by NGN. These communications include those between Harry and his father, King Charles’s private secretary, Sir Clive Alderton, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Michael Stevens. NGN has argued that these messages are crucial to their defense and could potentially discredit Harry’s claims.
David Sherborne, Prince Harry’s lawyer, dismissed NGN’s requests as a “classic fishing expedition,” arguing that NGN was seeking documents they should have pursued much earlier. Sherborne insisted that Prince Harry had already conducted thorough searches, going “above and beyond his obligations.” He accused NGN of using sensational language to create headlines and undermine Harry’s case.
The Duke of Sussex is one of over 40 claimants suing NGN for alleged privacy violations, which include phone hacking, voicemail interception, and the use of private investigators to illicitly obtain confidential information. These allegations date back to between 1994 and 2016 and involve journalists from NGN’s now-defunct News of the World and The Sun.
Hudson argued that Harry had created an “obstacle course” by failing to provide documents from his former lawyers and royal household staff. “If the claimant wanted his documents from his former solicitors or from the royal household… he would have got them,” Hudson stated, suggesting that Harry had obstructed NGN’s efforts to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence.
Sherborne countered by highlighting NGN’s own history of evidence destruction, referencing millions of emails that NGN allegedly deleted to cover up incriminating information. He accused NGN of hypocrisy, arguing that the publisher was now accusing Harry of the very behavior it had previously engaged in.
The case against NGN stems from the infamous phone hacking scandal that erupted in 2011, leading to the closure of the News of the World. NGN has since issued an unreserved apology to the victims and settled 1,300 claims related to voicemail interception. However, The Sun has never accepted liability for these claims.
In a recent ruling, Judge Timothy Fancourt denied Harry’s attempt to expand his lawsuit to include allegations that Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of NGN at the time, was aware of and attempted to conceal unlawful activities. Fancourt’s decision was a significant setback for Harry, who aimed to hold Murdoch personally accountable.
As the January 2025 trial date approaches, both sides are entrenched in a bitter dispute over evidence and disclosures. The outcome of this legal battle could have profound implications not only for Prince Harry but also for the broader media landscape and the accountability of the British tabloid press.
The ongoing litigation underscores the complexities and high stakes involved in privacy violation cases, particularly when they involve high-profile individuals like Prince Harry. With both sides trading serious accusations, the court’s forthcoming decisions will be closely watched, potentially setting precedents for future cases involving media intrusion and personal privacy.
KINDLY CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP COMMUNITY FOR FREE, GET THE LATEST ON THE GO HERE