There were plenty of opportunities to witness the intrusive power of the press at London’s High Court yesterday. It was on full display even before people entered the building, hoping to catch a glimpse of Prince Harry giving evidence in his privacy case against Mirror Group Newspapers.
A steady stream of snappers started arriving in taxis and Ubers from about 6am, each lugging a stepladder and heavy camera gear. Many carried tripods and telephoto lenses. A few brought special high-tech brackets to attach remotely operated cameras to fence railings.
By 9am the entrance was decked with tiers of photographers as another 30 camera crews waged small turf wars along the pavement. Two photographers debated which way the prince would turn his head when he got out of his car — a disaster if he turned right instead of left — so they set up a small camera behind the entrance column just in case. Several reporters did live crosses to studios all over the world, while others vox-popped people gawking at what was going on.
Suddenly Harry‘s car arrived and for about 20 seconds everything went nuts. People yelled at strangers to get out of the way, lights flashed, camera shutters fired like machine guns. And then, just as suddenly, it was over.
The heights of intrusion
It was a peek inside the crazy world of Prince Harry, who had come to court to argue that media intrusion has dominated and affected his entire life, and how, at its worst, phone hacking and other illegal information-gathering have hugely damaged him, his family and everyone close to him.
In his 55-page witness statement he made this abundantly clear:
I genuinely feel that in every relationship that I’ve ever had — be that with friends, girlfriends, with family or with the army, there’s always been a third party involved, namely the tabloid press.
Having seen me grow up from a baby (being born into this ‘contractual relationship’ without any choice) and scrutinised my every move, the tabloids have known the challenges and mental health struggles that I have had to deal with throughout my childhood and adult life, and for them to then play on that and use it to their own advantage, I think is, well, criminal.
Prince Harry’s case is based on 147 articles published by the Mirror Group between 1996 and 2010, which he says were probably based on phone hacking or other forms of unlawful information-gathering. For the purposes of the trial, 33 of them are subject to cross-examination by the Mirror Group’s barrister, Andrew Green KC.
When Harry swore an oath, he became the first senior royal to give legal testimony since King Edward VII in 1890.
The court is as atmospheric as an airport waiting room: stuffy, low ceiling, crowded. Harry’s voice sounds tired, and at one stage he’s asked to speak up. He’s courteous and polite, with very few instances of humour. For someone who’s been accused of seeking the limelight, he’s not exactly relishing the moment.
The prince often addresses points directly to presiding High Court Judge Justice Timothy Fancourt, addressing him as m’lord. There’s lots of opening and retrieving and tedious searching through binders with files and story print-outs and witness statements, and Harry often insists on seeing each story in its entirety before answering questions about specific passages. To speed things up, he’s given someone to sit next to him to help navigate the legal documents.
Green contended that many of the articles contained information that was already in the public domain and not the result of hacking by the Mirror Group. For example, the private information in a 1996 story about Princess Diana visiting Harry at school was announced by the palace the day before the Daily Mirror published its story. Another article, in 2000, about Harry breaking his thumb had been reported by other media outlets before the Daily Mirror.
The defence then turned to a series of articles in 2003 about Harry’s gap year in Australia, which were submitted to demonstrate how press intrusion had marred his experience working as a jackaroo in the Queensland outback.
A ‘suffocating’ experience
Harry’s witness statement said the articles turned an adventure into a “suffocating” experience and demonstrated probable phone hacking or other forms of unlawful information-gathering by Mirror Group titles, the Daily Mirror and People. But the defence said a Daily Mirror story by Jane Kerr, titled “Harry is ready to quit Oz”, “simply reported the statement in the same way that the rest of the press was reporting the statement”.
Green asked: “Are you aware that the same story appeared on the same day as the Daily Mirror article in The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Mail?”
Harry replied: “Ah, I’m not aware of that, no.”
Green questioned whether the information in the Mirror story came from Harry’s liaison officer during the gap year, Mark Dyer: “So, Prince Harry, the information you are alleging came from voicemail interception or unlawful information-gathering by Jane Kerr in fact came from your minders and Mr Dyer, didn’t it?”
Harry replied: “I see the similarities between all the stories you have shown me, again proving the level of interest and fascination in aspects of my life even when I’m in the middle of the Australian outback … But I think, again, the point in two of my witness statements, the two payments were incredibly suspicious.”
He was drawing attention to evidence that showed payments from the Daily Mirror to the ex-Fleet Street journalist turned media fixer Frank Thorne, who operated in Australia until his death in September 2021. It is one of many instances in which Harry’s team infers that because payments were made to known hackers, illegal activity probably took place.
His legal team has documented 135 separate payments from the Mirror to private investigators for services relating to Harry, and a further 154 for Harry’s associates. This is described in his witness statement “as a huge number, especially considering that the defendant is known to have concealed and destroyed evidence of their wrongdoing on an industrial scale”.
The more difficult task, however, is to show where and how that money was spent. Did it fund illegal searches and, if so, for what stories? It may be a tall order, but as the plaintiff in a civil matter, the burden of proof rests with Harry.
Throughout the first day of cross-examination, Prince Harry was calm and focused, and took opportunities to remind the court that many of the detailed questions posed by the defence would be better directed at Mirror journalists, most conspicuously absent during the trial.
The one notable exception is Kerr, the reporter responsible for two Daily Mirror stories about the prince’s time in Australia. She will give evidence as early as tomorrow.
In his witness statement, Harry concludes: “One of the reasons why I’m bringing this claim is to hold people to account for what they have done, so that they can’t hide behind their own institution or organisation.
“As I am subjecting myself to the court process, I fully expect the journalists in question to also come along and explain how they wrote these stories because, on the one hand, [Mirror Group Newspapers] admits that phone hacking and other unlawful information-gathering went on but, on the other, they deny liability for every claim that’s been brought against them, including my own.
“They admit people were doing it but deny the victims’ claims. Their position makes no sense and I am determined to get to the bottom of it once and for all.”
