I’m third in line outside the High Court in London, choppers overhead, when word comes down that Prince Harry won’t show. Day one of the Daily Mirror phone-hacking trial and predictably the resulting coverage is about Harry’s non-attendance.
After the Netflix doco, the book, and a rather awkward appearance at his dad’s coronation, the bank of media waited eagerly for Harry’s next starring role, and so the no-show guaranteed that they ran with the story that the Duke of Sussex was “wasting the court’s time”, probably because it was easier than explaining his absence had more to do with confusion over the length of opening statements than his desire to attend his daughter’s second birthday.
It was a non-issue anyway. The presiding High Court judge, Justice Timothy Fancourt, has worried all through the two weeks of the preliminary trial about the proceedings not running to schedule. Today’s comments mirrored all the others about punctuality and overly-long cross examinations imposing on the timetable.
Meanwhile, there was a much more important issue receiving less attention from the British media. Weirdly, it was also about non-attendance, but on a much grander scale. As Harry’s barrister David Sherborne noted, Mirror Group Newspapers has decided to call just two or three witnesses to defend the 33 articles complained about by Harry, meaning the Mirror is leaving considerable gaps in its defence.
It’s so odd. Fancourt asked both sides what he should make of it. When he came to writing his judgment, he wondered, how he should take it into account?
In his opening statement, Sherborne repeatedly urged the judge to draw adverse inferences, in other words to conclude the Mirror Group is not calling witnesses because it has something to hide.
By this he means any Mirror journalist who gives evidence will be asked whether they hacked phones or engaged in unlawful information gathering (UIG)? If they tell a lie they’ll be committing perjury, and that’s a criminal offence.
But from the Mirror’s perspective it might be a very smart tactic to not call journalists to the stand, even though several are still working for the Mirror. The burden of proof rests with Harry, but without evidence from journalists that burden could be even greater.
Alongside the Duke of Sussex, allegations from three other claimants are being tested — a bunch of that particular brand of British celeb you’ve never really heard of: someone by the name of Nikki Sanderson (who?); Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell (real name Michael Turner, not quite the same ring to it); Fiona Wightman, ex-wife of the comedian Paul Whitehouse.
Two hundred and seven newspaper stories published between 1991 and 2011 will be picked over, with about 140 of them, from 1996 to 2010, about Harry. The four cases, including Harry’s, were selected by the trial judge to assist in setting the level of damages Mirror Group Newspapers should pay if the claimants win.
The High Court would then consider other cases from slightly more famous celebrities like the former Girls Aloud singer Cheryl (no surname required), the estate of George Michael, and former Arsenal and England footballer Ian Wright.
In his opening statement, Sherborne revealed networks of payments to private investigators as well as documents linking known hackers to reporters from Mirror Group’s publications — the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and People — between 1996 and 2011. Several stories, he said, showed the “telltale signs” of illegal news gathering, including stories about Harry’s schooldays when he was supposedly protected by a pact with the press that ensured his school was off limits.
The media later had an obsession with his first serious girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, who was hounded by Mirror papers across the world, inevitably contributing to the breakdown of their relationship. Other stories focused on Harry’s military training and zeroed in on his relationship with older brother Prince William, especially when there were signs of tension between them.
As Sherborne noted:
Brothers can sometimes disagree but once it’s made public in this way, and inside feelings revealed in the way they are, trust begins to be eroded.
Sherborne also referred to articles about the months Harry spent in Australia on a gap year, when an ex-Fleet Street journalist Frank Thorne was allegedly gathering information illegally for the British press. All these stories, Sherborne concluded, demonstrated that hacking had “obviously” occurred.
But the Mirror Group’s counsel, Andrew Green KC, argued Harry’s entire case is circumstantial because: “There is no evidence to support a finding that any mobile phone used by the Duke of Sussex was hacked on even one occasion. Still less that he was habitually hacked.
“Zilch, zero, nil, nada, niente. Absolute nothing, That is a very difficult starting point that the claimant was habitually hacked or even hacked once.”
Green also argued there was no evidence in the call data — which monitors who was calling known private investigators — to support Harry’s case: “There is no call data whatsoever for the Duke of Sussex and scant for his associates.”
Day one of this trial has revealed this is not an easy case to win and that the Mirror Group intends to fight hard. So all eyes are now on Harry’s latest moment in the spotlight when he’ll need to justify his claims while withstanding a barrage of forensic and probing questions.
