Prince Harry ‘ordered’ to explain why he deleted messages to JR Moehringer

The more I cover Prince Harry’s legal actions against the British media, the more mind-bending I find the British media’s operations and the British legal system. It’s not a comparison to the American legal system, which is also flawed and crazy in its own unique way. But the legal arguments being made by various British press outlets to defend themselves against Harry’s lawsuits are absolutely crazy. Last week, the lawyers for News Group Newspapers got a hearing on the issue of Prince Harry’s incomplete records. Again, Harry is the plaintiff. He’s suing NGN for hacking into his private communications, for illegal surveillance and blagging. NGN wants Harry to provide them with extensive documentation of HIS communications to his ghostwriter JR Moehringer. And what’s worse is that NGN just won this motion and the judge has told Harry to provide the court with those messages.

The Duke of Sussex has been ordered to explain why messages with his ghostwriter were destroyed after the publication of his memoir Spare when they could be relevant to his legal battle with the publishers of the Sun. Prince Harry was also told to attempt to retrieve the messages from the messaging service Signal, and his lawyers ordered to search through his other texts, WhatsApp messages and emails from 2005 to January 2023, when his bestselling autobiography was published, for relevant documents.

Anthony Hudson KC, for News Group Newspapers (NGN), accused the duke of “obfuscation” and creating an “obstacle course” during its efforts to find relevant material for the litigation over the prince’s allegations of unlawful information gathering. Harry had to be forced “kicking and screaming” to carry out searches of his communications, Hudson told the high court judge Mr Justice Fancourt on Thursday.

At the one-day hearing, NGN argued the Signal messages between 2020 and 2023 were important because Spare contained extensive references to the duke’s knowledge and suspicion of unlawful information gathering before 2013, the applicable date in the case. Any claim for damages must be lodged within six years, with Harry having launched his legal action in 2019. If he believed he had a potential claim against NGN before 2013, then the case could be dismissed on the grounds it was filed too late.

In his oral ruling, the judge described “troubling evidence” that a “large number of potentially relevant documents, confidential messages between the claimant and his ghostwriter [JR Moehringer] of Spare, as well as all the drafts of Spare, were destroyed sometime between 2021 and 2023, well after this claim was under way”.

It was not clear “what exactly happened and needs to be made so by a witness statement by the claimant himself explaining what happened to the Signal messages between him and his ghostwriter and whether any attempts have been made to seek to retrieve them”, Fancourt added. “It seems to me inherently likely that in the course of discussing at length the material for the duke’s autobiography, matters would have been said that related to the parts of Spare in which unlawful information gathering in relation to newspapers is discussed.”

He said Moehringer had written in a New Yorker magazine article that he and Harry “were texting around the clock”. The judge ordered the duke’s lawyers to search texts, WhatsApps and Signal messages as well as Harry’s laptop for relevant documents from 2005 to the end of January 2023, which was the date of publication of Spare, using 47 keywords. He said attempts should be made to retrieve the Signal messages that were believed to have been deleted.

The judge also expressed “real concern” that the majority of searches for relevant documents had been conducted by “the duke himself in California”, rather than by his solicitors. He said that apart from the articles Harry complained about, and documents relating to his responding to a summary judgment application the duke had “only disclosed five documents”, adding: “That is rather remarkable and gives me cause for concern about the disclosure exercise.”

[From The Guardian]

The judge’s ruling is bonkers, all things considered. NGN’s argument is: Harry deleted evidence of his knowledge of our criminal hacking pre-2013, and he must provide the court with ALL of his messages to his ghostwriter proving that he knew we were hacking him for years! The Guardian also covers David Sherborne’s rebuttal to NGN’s lawyers and now the judge. Sherborne basically said that Harry’s knowledge of hacking in 2021 doesn’t mean he had that same knowledge in 2013. Sherborne also accused NGN of trying to grab/create negative headlines about Harry “erasing evidence,” as if Harry was the guilty party in this situation. This whole thing is so utterly absurd, as Sherborne points out that this is all projection on NGN’s part, given their years-long cover-up and their own deletion of millions of emails.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

63 Responses to “Prince Harry ‘ordered’ to explain why he deleted messages to JR Moehringer”

  1. equality says:

    This is insane. All a message from 2021 would prove is that he knew in 2021. Even IF he said he suspected it previously, how is that PROOF that he did? Anybody can mix up dates and times years later. All this judge is doing is allowing PH’s privacy to be breached by these tools yet again.

    • StarWonderful says:

      It’s a fishing expedition, imv. The defendants want to comb through Harry’s emails for tabloid fodder– or they hope this will pressure Harry into dropping the case.

      • bisynaptic says:

        🎯

      • kirk says:

        Idiots are completely clueless about the way Signal works.

        Yes, Signal is the base code WhatsApp is built on, but in typical FaceBook fashion, WhatsApp is glitchy and hack-prone because of FaceBook’s need to harvest and monetize all their customers.

        Also NGN lawyers complaining that IF Harry wanted to produce interpalace comms he could, is preposterous. They were already told: “Royal family’s solicitors, Harbottle and Lewis, have insisted they hold no documents that are “in the claimant’s control”.”

    • Yvette says:

      @equality … This mind-boggling decision by the Judge isn’t completely unexpected after witnessing judgement after judgement against Meghan to release any personal information demanded of her in her trial with the AN Group. After which, the Daily Mail promptly published all of her texts in sensationalized articles.

      I find the British legal system so convoluted.

      You could say the American legal system is just as convoluted. But American Judges assign reasonable, precedence-based, and justifiable limits on discovery. And instructions from a presiding American Judge rarely leave you with a ‘please make it all make sense!’ headache.

  2. Amy Bee says:

    This is Meghan’s case all over again when MoS was asking for information about Archie, Kate and other things that were irrelevant to the case. They’re just asking for this information so they can publish it in their paper.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      Which begs the question again: Why do the courts allow Murdoch publications to report about this case and the Sussexes without making them declare their conflict of interest?

      • Dana says:

        This is why the royals almost never sue.

        Well that and the obvious ethical implications

      • Christine says:

        And the royals hated what was actually published in Spare! Wow, I don’t see this playing out well for the Windsors.

  3. aquarius64 says:

    NGN wants the emails between Harry and his ghostwriter is they want dirt on the Windsors. When it’s on the public record it’s their excuse to print it.

  4. Mrs. Smith says:

    “Spare contained extensive references to the duke’s knowledge and suspicion of unlawful information gathering before 2013, the applicable date in the case. Any claim for damages must be lodged within six years, with Harry having launched his legal action in 2019. If he believed he had a potential claim against NGN before 2013, then the case could be dismissed on the grounds it was filed too late.”

    Ummm, huh? So because H was (rightfully) suspicious before 2013, this case is beyond the statute of limitations?? Perhaps he didn’t feel confident in his suspicions until 2013 and he filed in 2019. Why bother giving NGN a win here? I’m surprised since Sherborne’s argument is solid? I don’t get it.

    • sunnyside up says:

      As long as he is only suing them for hacking after 2013 I can’t see how the NGN argument works.

  5. Lulu says:

    Justice Cannon?

  6. Nic919 says:

    They are trying to bring a limitations defence but even if Harry suspected he was being hacked, there is no way he would know that it was NGN doing it. Just general knowledge of maybe being hacked isn’t sufficient to say that Harry knew who he should have been suing? I mean how would he know anything until the Leveson inquiry ?

    The judge is also being more permissive because it’s a preliminary stage.

  7. Hypocrisy says:

    We knew it was going to get nasty, this is why all the others have settled in the past. Suspecting something might be happening is a long way from actually knowing it is happening. I have faith that Prince Harry’s attorneys will get the victory in the end, especially in the court of public opinion. Slay those demons Prince Harry we are cheering for you 👏🏼🎉🕊️💖

  8. Lady Digby says:

    I am unhappy about this ruling because it gives them opportunity to pry legally into his private exchanges with his ghostwriter. They just want to create more content and get access to those missing 400 pages. No wonder people don’t sue newspapers because it ends up with more obtrusion into your private life and you being treated like you are the criminal instead of them!!

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Agree. It sounds like a legal way into NGN’s phone hacking. Hoping that Harry and his legal team throw back a counter filing requesting every email from NGN. Unless, they already did and it’s the BM focusing on Harry.

  9. Libra says:

    They want access to those 400 unpublished pages.

  10. sevenblue says:

    WaPo lost their new editor because of this lawsuit, no doubt it is gonna get ugly and personal. Remember all the negative headlines, morning shows & newspapers happily parroting the words of Mirror’s attorneys’ statements about how Harry is definitely gonna lose. It is gonna be worse here because DM is much more powerful than Mirror. Harry is doing the right thing and here that is all that matters.

    • Darkwing Duck says:

      The Mail will amplify negative statements against Harry but NGN are owners of The Sun and the Times of London. The lawsuit in which this ruling was made would relate to newsgathering for The Sun, I understand.

  11. Chantal1 says:

    So I guess the fix is in. They like deleted incriminating evidence so Harry should produce his messages when NGN produces their deleted emails, which are more pertinent to the case. At least its Harry’s attorneys that sift thru the messages first -I’m not sure about UK law so would they still fall under attorney client privilege? The ruling itself is ridiculous but since we have Florida Trump appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon and a Republican led Supreme Court doing everything possible to try to help Trump with his many legal cases, nothing surprises me any more. Harry is like David going up against Goliath aka the BM and their wealthy owners. I hope he wins all of his cases.

  12. Nic919 says:

    The reality of this is that the bulk of the messages would be when Harry was under the royal arm and so their staff would or should have been monitoring this. They are likely making things difficult too.

  13. Brassy Rebel says:

    I’m pretty sure Harry knew this wouldn’t be easy when he filed suit. Harry suspected he was being illegally hacked and may have suspected by whom. But that’s a long way from knowing enough to bring someone to court. NGN is alleging he knew more much sooner and may have communicated this to his ghostwriter. It’s weirdly almost a confession of wrongdoing by NGN.

    • sevenblue says:

      Yeah, the Mirror also did the same argument. Instead of defending themselves that they didn’t do it, they said you should have sued us earlier. It didn’t work for them, I hope it won’t work for DM either.

  14. Feebee says:

    This ruling makes no sense and it’s infuriating. But it’s not the first time I’ve thought that in not just Harry’s case but usually connected with the hacking cases.

    The courts seem as uninterested as holding power to account and the issue of corruption as the press and here we see them appearing to join forces. I don’t think this is accidental.

  15. Lady Digby says:

    The judge also granted NGN’s request that Harry’s former solicitors at law firm Harbottle & Lewis and members of the “royal household” – Sir Clive Alderton, private secretary to the King, and Sir Michael Stevens, the keeper of the privy purse – should be written to to request material relevant to the litigation.
    Are the royal household going to help their mates at the tabs and hinder Harry? Maybe Jason Knife is going to “volunteer” again to help a tabloid in trouble as tabloiditis can be so painful?

    • Jais says:

      Private secretaries of the king concocting some sort of cockamamie evidence that Harry knew before 2013 in 3…2…1

    • Lady Esther says:

      I’m sure that a large settlement offer (maybe 20 million?) has already been made to Harry, may well be increased and now that the Palace grey men are explicitly involved at BP level (not flunkies like Jason), things are about to get real on the RF side. Just how much are they comfortable being known publicly? QEII shut down the Diana butler litigation for far less….

      • Jais says:

        Well the biggest issue is that yes, as it gets closer to going to trial, NGN will make obscene settlement offers. And remember even if he wins, Harry will have to pay the difference to NGN. So let’s say NGN offers him 20mil, Harry wins, the judge awards him 5mil in damages, Harry will then have to pay 15mil to NGN. Am I understanding it correctly?

      • sevenblue says:

        @Jais, I think he has to pay both sides’ lawyers (not the difference) if he is awarded less than the settlement amount. It is to discourage people to continue civil litigation if they can settle it out of the court. However, the lawyers’ fee is no doubt gonna be in millions for both sides. That is why others always settle.

      • Jais says:

        Lordy, my Sunday is off. For some reason, I always think that it means pay the difference. But okay, so in that case, NGN then tries to delay the case for as long as possible to rack up lawyers’s fees?

      • sevenblue says:

        @Jais, yeah, they want them to spend unnecessary amount of time and money in court to convince them to settle. Plus, they are gonna get hundreds of articles out of it after getting all these unrelated info on them. They did the same thing to Meghan. They published hundreds of articles on the info they got in court.

    • bisynaptic says:

      Oooh, sh—‘s gettin real…

  16. Jais says:

    So do only Harry’s lawyers go through all the messages retrieved through signal? Does NGN get to see all the messages or only the ones found to be relevant to the case? And does the court make it all public? I’m a little confused Bc surely all of Harry’s message to his ghostwriter can’t be made public? And is the judge gonna next order that all the 400 other pages of spare be made available to NGN? Like what? Surely the publisher wouldn’t alllow that. And neither should the RF want that. They should be terrified of that.

    • sunnyside up says:

      They will be worrying about what he decided against publishing in Spare.

    • Sigrid Maelstrom says:

      Harry’s lawyers will have to go through the messages that can be retrieved; the test for standard disclosure in England & Wales is that documents must be disclosed if you’re relying on them, if they adversely affect your case, and if they support or adversely affect the other party’s case. So once the lawyers had identified those, they’d redact irrelevant/ personal / commercially sensitive information and anything that’s legally privileged (ie messages to/ from your lawyers).
      However, you can make applications for specific disclosure, and the other side might well try this to see what interesting things they could find out.

      • Jais says:

        Thank you. So Harry’s lawyers would redact everything except what you mentioned above. But then ngn’s lawyers could put in applications to the judge for a specific disclosure, meaning to see a specific redacted section? The judge then decides based on the reasoning given?

      • Sigrid Maelstrom says:

        @Jais
        Yes, the other side could apply to see the whole of a redacted doc or make a request for a new disclosure search based on what comes up in the standard disclosure.

        @ Bumblebee also yes, the disclosing party can apply for a confidentiality order on their disclosed docs.
        (If you want to look this stuff up it’s in Civil Procedure Rule 31.)

  17. Bumblebee says:

    Is there such a thing as gag orders in the UK? Or protecting privileged information and evidence? Could they do this with the messages NGN wants, so they can’t publish them or anything they learn from them?

  18. Lady Digby says:

    Hugh Grant tweeted the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides. Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive and so Hugh was told that he risked being liable for 10 million in legal fees on both sides if he went to court.
    Are the lawyers truly the winners because whichever side wins, they get paid? I understand why Hugh Grant settled because it was the right decision for him.

    • Sigrid Maelstrom says:

      Thanks @Lady Digby, I hadn’t seen Hugh Grant tweeting about Part 36 offers but that’s essentially right: you can make a high, time limited offer early on in court proceedings and if the court awards the other side less than your offer, they’ll have to pay your costs – and part of your costs at a higher rate. (Part 36 is a favourite subject for law exams 😅).

      • Jais says:

        Thanks for all the info @sigrid maelstrom! So the time limited offer is early on in the court proceedings. Does that usually mean the time right before the case begins, after all the discovery, or is it a time that has already passed?

  19. Saucy&Sassy says:

    Well, I hope the fishing expedition lands the brf in the news because of the info that the bm will write that wasn’t included in Spare. Let’s be clear, the reason that the Judge wants the brf involved is because they think they’ll be able to stop Harry. Good luck with that. I think the brf and bm have just outplayed themselves. The bm because they could seriously damage the Monarchy. I’ve often wondered if that isn’t what Murdoch wants.

    • Christine says:

      I’m not actually worried about this, from Harry’s side. It’s a gross invasion of privacy, yes, but I don’t think they are going to find some sort of “gotcha” on Harry. The royal family are the ones that should be absolutely terrified of this decision.

    • Anonymous says:

      “I’ve often wondered if that isn’t what Murdoch wants.”

      I’d bet it is, he has no loyalty to any of them for all they’re joined at the hip with KP at the moment. Even Camilla needs to watch her back…

  20. Lucylee says:

    There will be unintended revelations on both sides from this fishing expedition. Most will be on the RF side and their so-called popularity is going to further spiral into free fall.

  21. Carol says:

    I’m confused as to why the court is giving this a nefarious spin, as if Harry deleted old texts because of the case, specifically. Who doesn’t clear their phone of old communication and downloads occasionally, to regain phone memory or just because?

    • Jazz Hands says:

      Exactly. And in Harry’s case, as someone who had been extensively hacked in past, wouldn’t he be ultra cautious and not take risks having stuff out there just waiting to be hacked/stolen?

  22. Monlette says:

    There was a graphic novel coauthored by John Cleese called “Superman: True Brit” where Superman was born British and was working for a British tabloid instead of the Daily Planet. I won’t spoil it, but it proves Tabloids were a huge pain in the arse long before Meghan stumbled upon the scene.

  23. bisynaptic says:

    The judicial system is in cahoots with/servant to the same interests as the press and the (paid off) police/government. The UK is rotten, at the core. Charles is the red cherry on top of this rotten heap.

  24. Tessa says:

    The derangers are stirred up by the awards business already as they are of Harry s texts and emails. This constant hostility goes on over everything involving harry and Meghan. This vendetta is downright scary.

  25. Cathy says:

    It’s my opinion that NGN already have those texts and emails but they have acquired them illegally. They would love to divulge what’s in those texts etc but can’t as they would have to admit to hacking then.

  26. blunt talker says:

    they are trying to see if Harry has another book to write-what info his ghost writer has that was not in Spare-the royal family wants to know

  27. martha says:

    I’d be a terrible courtroom lawyer – I’d just want to scream, “You’re alllllll shits. You’re shits. You’re shits. You’re shits. – I rest my case.”

  28. Justjan says:

    This might serve as a good reason to go ahead and publish that followup book if the esteemed courts are helping the gossip rags get material. If anyone needs to be paid it should be Harry. I’d buy it!

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment