Prince Harry seems to have attributed the conflict to his own legal representative in a dispute overPrince Williambeing 'dragged' into his Supreme Court case.
The Duke of Sussex, who is taking legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail, appeared to be unaware that his lawyer David Sherborne would involve his brother in the case.
Harry, who has been seeking to mend relations with his family, recently distanced himself from his prominent attorney by stating he was "not responsible" for the disputes during the court session that involved the Prince and Princess of Wales in his case.
The row erupted following a preliminary hearing at the High Court before a trial initiated by the duke, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, SirElton John, Elizabeth Hurleyand three others, who claim the Daily Mail intercepted phones, monitored landlines, and installed listening devices in vehicles, all of which is firmly refuted.
Among those tuning in through a remote video connection was Harry, seemingly viewing from the middle of the night fromCalifornia.
But he seems to have been caught off guard by Mr. Sherborne, who is acting on behalf of all seven claimants, including the duke, submitting written arguments to the court that mention Prince William and his then-girlfriend.Kate Middleton.
They are referred to as part of Prince Harry’s 'circle' who were reportedly monitored in the 2000s by private investigators hired by the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, which has denied any misconduct and called the court claims 'exaggerated' and 'completely absurd,' as well as false.
Following the disclosure of William's name by court reporters, including those from the Press Association and The Times, the Daily Telegraph's headline read "Harry drags William into battle." It suggested that this action could exacerbate the growing divide between the brothers, just weeks after the duke met with the King for the first time in 19 months over tea at Clarence House.
Later in the early hours of Thursday, while journalists in the UK were resting, increased efforts were made to disseminate Harry's account of the events.
A source connected to the duke stated that Harry was "not personally pulling" his brother into the legal conflict and "wasn't informed about the evidence included in the overall case presented by David Sherborne." The source also mentioned that Harry was "not accountable for" the arguments put forward by Mr. Sherborne.
A nine-week investigation into all the accusations is set to begin in January. The High Court was informed that the Daily Mail has gathered 'dozens' of witnesses to protect itself from the unfounded claims.
The court was informed yesterday, during the initial hearing, that legal experts representing Prince Harry and others devised a 'disguise plan' to deceive the High Court.
Inflammatory emails involving claimant Sir Simon Hughes, the ex-president of the Lib Dems, revealed 'surprising' conversations on how to deceive the legal process, according to allegations.
Actress Sadie Frost is also being questioned about whether she similarly deceived the court.
It was disclosed that the legal research team assisting Harry and the others had apparently explored ways to bypass stringent court regulations if their plans were at risk.
According to the law, claims related to privacy must be filed within six years, or they will no longer be valid. The 'limitation' law is in place to ensure fairness for all involved and to avoid issues arising from unreliable memories or witnesses who may have passed away or are otherwise unavailable to provide testimony. However, emails discovered between 2016 and 2019 show that members of the legal team—such as experienced solicitor Mark Thomson, convicted phone hacker Graham Johnson, and former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris—were apparently discussing ways to bypass these rules.
Antony White KC, representing Associated Newspapers, read an email to the court and stated: 'What stands out in the email, and seems surprising, is that there was what I'll refer to as "limitation camouflage" being implemented. You only use camouflage if you have something to conceal.'
Mr. White mentioned in written statements that regarding Sir Simon—formerly the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg and who held the position of justice minister in the coalition government—there was "a document suggesting that in July 2019, a plan was made involving Mr. Johnson to create a deceptive portrayal concerning the limitation."
And regarding actress Ms Frost, there was a document "which seems to indicate that she talked about her possible claim with members of the research team and her lawyers in April 2016" – over six years prior to when she, Harry, and others finally submitted their claims in October 2022.
Seven individuals are taking legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail. An email from December 2018 showed Dr Harris informing Ms Frost that there were "five or so others who have been notified, and I think they are suing" — indicating that at least six claimants were already involved by that time.
The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, commented on the emails: 'It somewhat implies – that is my current impression – that, by that point, there were fragments of the puzzle gathered together.'
The trick examined by the legal research team seemed to be a way to bypass the six-year rule by publishing 'new' stories on a website called Byline, alleging that the Mail was engaged in hacking.
Then they would act as if the claimants had learned they were potential victims from these articles – whereas, in fact, they had already been considering legal action against the newspaper, but feared they might miss the six-year deadline, it was mentioned.
Senior lawyer Mr Thomson, whose company was previously known as Atkins Thomson, was apparently part of the concept.
An email titled "Daily Mail hacking" sent by Dr. Harris to Sir Simon on July 11, 2019, and copied to Mr. Johnson, read: "The allegations regarding the Mail's hacking are being prepared and will be launched soon. To prevent the Mail from claiming 'limitation' (meaning you were aware of this six years ago), Atkins Thomson believe it is advisable for the stories to be written under Byline, which can serve as the foundation for the claims being made."
It was this email that Mr. White claimed was part of the "limitation camouflage scheme." He noted that Sir Simon provided the court with a statement of truth, stating he discovered the evidence only in "early 2022," three years after the email was sent.
Another email, sent in August 2017 from Dr. Harris to Ms. Frost, stated that he would "talk to Mark [Thomson]...about hacking matters as we have collected additional evidence since our last conversation," indicating the actress had already been part of earlier discussions.
Mr. White stated that Dr. Harris had requested Ms. Frost for a quote for one of the Byline pieces, and regarding Sir Simon, had suggested that a Byline article should be composed "which can serve as the foundation for claims being drafted...to prevent the Mail from asserting 'limitation'."
Mr. Sherborne described Mr. White's portrayal of the emails as 'theatrical'.
Associated Newspapers strongly denies all the 'completely absurd' accusations. Last year, in a 'forceful defense of its reporting,' the publisher provided thorough responses to the allegations in court, detailing the valid sources for the information in each article that was disputed, including identifying a former Home Secretary as the source of a story regarding Stephen Lawrence, the son of Baroness Lawrence.
The case is expected to cost £38 million – described by two judges earlier this year as a "clearly unreasonable" sum of money.
The two-day session held yesterday ended with Mr Justice Nicklin anticipated to make a decision on the initial issues at a future time.
Read more- Is Prince Harry's legal conflict with The Sun escalating into a critical confrontation as the judge dismisses important claims?
- Is Prince Harry's high-stakes legal action against the Mail likely to encounter significant challenges due to rapidly increasing 'clearly unreasonable' expenses?
- Could the impressive £38 million price tag of Prince Harry's legal battle with the Daily Mail shake up the legal system?
- Could the serious allegations made by Prince Harry and Doreen Lawrence against the Mail regarding phone hacking fall apart if proof is not discovered?
- What caused a significant setback in Prince Harry's legal approach when a judge reduced his list of witnesses for the high-profile trial against The Sun?
Posting Komentar