On Wednesday, the publisher of The Mirror admitted unlawfully gathering information on Harry in one instance and apologized. However, the publisher denied that its journalists hacked into Harry’s voice mail messages and said that too much time had passed since the intrusions, which should prevent the case from proceeding. Piers Morgan, the TV host who was the editor of The Mirror during some of the years that the trial involves, has also denied wrongdoing.
Harry has two other lawsuits against British tabloids related to illicit information-gathering: One is against the publisher of The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and involves other plaintiffs, including the singer Elton John and the actresses Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley. The other lawsuit is against the publisher of The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Both publishers deny the allegations and have asked to have the cases dismissed. A judgment is expected in the coming months.
What is Harry’s objective?
For the prince, this is about more than just money. Harry has likened the tabloids’ coverage of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, to their treatment of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car accident in 1997 while being chased by paparazzi. In his tell-all memoir, “Spare,” published in January, Harry described the trauma that intrusive tabloid coverage has caused him.
Harry’s suit against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun, alleges that, in addition to phone hacking, the organization illegally obtained information such as his medical records. The actor Hugh Grant, who appeared in court in April, is also bringing a separate legal action against The Sun for allegedly hiring private investigators to break into his house.
Is Prince William involved?
In a legal filing in April, Harry revealed that News Group Newspapers paid his brother, William, the heir to the throne, a “huge sum of money” in 2020 to settle claims that its journalists hacked his cellphone. The payment was part of a “secret agreement” between the publisher and the royal family, in which the family would defer legal claims against the company and avoid the spectacle of having to testify about embarrassing details from their intercepted voice mail messages, the filing said.
