The King tried to prevent the Duke of Sussex from suing the publisher of The Sun newspaper, the High Court has heard. Prince Harry is to argue at trial in January that his father “acted to discourage and stymie him” from pursuing legal action against News Group Newspapers (NGN), Mr Justice Fancourt revealed, quoting from a document filed by the Duke’s legal team.
His case concerns accusations of “blagging” – obtaining confidential details about him by deception – and other unlawful invasions of privacy. On Friday, the judge granted the Duke access to a cache of Buckingham Palace emails sent between two of the most senior members of the Royal household and specific senior executives at News Group Newspapers (NGN). David Sherborne, Prince Harry’s barrister, told the court the emails could help uncover alleged secret negotiations between the palace and the publisher.
David Sherborne (right), acting as Prince Harry’s barrister, told the High Court that he wanted to see the emails
He said: “Emails between NGN and the palace would be highly relevant in terms of providing the full picture not only as to the actual knowledge of the claimant but also as to the position in relation to constructive knowledge, based on what the palace was being told by NGN.”
The judge said: “It seems to me that there is a limited category of documents where despite the element of delay, and despite the relative lateness of the application, there is a credible case for saying a full picture is necessary in the interest of justice. “I will, however, limit the documents that are being sought.”
The Duke had asked for access to “relevant emails sent between five email accounts of NGN employees and five employees of the Royal household” between January 2013 and September 2019. The Royal household employees “are those involved in royal communications and the private secretaries to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II” – who during that period were Sir Christopher Geidt and Sir Edward Young.
The NGN employees included Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News UK, her predecessor, Mike Darcey, and Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp. The Duke previously alleged that Buckingham Palace had a “secret agreement” with Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper group.
He claimed his grandmother knew about the deal, under which the Royal family agreed not to sue the publisher in return for an apology and settlement at a later date. The allegation was strongly denied by all sides and rejected as “implausible” by a judge, who did not allow it to form part of his case. In March 2023, the Duke revealed that his brother, the Prince of Wales, had quietly settled a phone hacking claim for a “very large sum” against NGN, three years earlier.
The court heard that some emails had already been provided to the Duke by Ms Brooks as early as April last year, but Mr Sherborne said these had been “cherry-picked”. He alleged that further disclosure was “highly likely to be relevant” and may lead the court to draw “inescapable inferences”.
NGN opposed the “disproportionate, time-consuming and costly” bid, arguing that “extracting” the emails would cost £17,000. Meanwhile, it emerged that the Duke is one of two remaining claimants still pursuing legal action against NGN after 39 others settled their cases. Only Prince Harry and Tom Watson, the former deputy Labour leader, have opted to push on towards a trial, scheduled for January 2025.
Those who have agreed settlements in recent months include Melanie Brown, the Spice Girl, Alan Yentob, the former BBC executive, Alfie Allen, the Game of Thrones actor, Ted Beckham, David Beckham’s father, and Ben Elliot, the Queen’s nephew. Mr Sherborne had previously suggested that claimants were being forced to settle to avoid being lumbered with huge legal bills if they rejected a settlement offer, even if they won at trial.
On the settlements, an NGN spokesman said: “In some disputed cases, it has made commercial sense to come to a settlement agreement before trial to bring a resolution to the matter. “As we reach the tail end of the litigation, NGN is drawing a line under the disputed matters.” The trial is expected to last between six and eight weeks, with a further hearing due to be held in December.
