VF: Prince Harry’s civil case against the Sun should be a criminal investigation

Royal historian/commentator Clive Irving has a fascinating new piece in Vanity Fair about Prince Harry’s lawsuits against the British tabloids. Just eight months ago, Harry scored a massive victory in his lawsuit against the Mirror, and the Mirror settled the rest of Harry’s outstanding claims out of court. Next up? The Sun, part of the Murdoch family’s News Group Newspapers or News UK. Right now, Harry’s civil case against the Sun is scheduled for January. Hugh Grant backed out of his part of the lawsuit because the Sun offered him a huge settlement and he basically couldn’t refuse. There’s no word on whether Harry has been offered a settlement, but I suspect that Harry is committed to seeing this through to the bitter end.

Irving’s piece is notable because he’s putting all of the moving pieces together: there’s Harry’s civil lawsuit, there’s the ongoing criminal investigation into the extent of the Sun’s illegal activities, there’s former prime minister Gordon Brown making some startling revelations about how thoroughly NGN sought to destroy him, and there’s Will Lewis, who used to be CEO of NGN and is now CEO of the Washington Post… and currently set on burying any and all stories about his sleazy criminal past. Some highlights from Irving’s piece:

Prince Harry & Will Lewis: Whichever way it goes, Harry’s obdurate effort to expose the truth about the most egregious scandal ever to envelop British journalism has already inflicted serious collateral damage on the reputations of a cluster of top newspaper executives, prominent among them Will Lewis, now the CEO and publisher of The Washington Post.

Gordon Brown’s Guardian column: The pressure of these allegations [in the civil case] has now been heightened by the intervention of a former British prime minister, Gordon Brown. His move underlines the fact that the most damning allegations are not about the scale of the newsroom-directed hacking itself, but about measures allegedly taken by Murdoch executives in 2010 and 2011 to destroy a trove of incriminating emails and computer hard drives. As Brown himself put it, writing in The Guardian: “While Lewis has always claimed he was Mr Clean Up, these new allegations point to a cover-up. The destroyed emails were likely to have revealed much more of News Group’s intrusion into the private lives of thousands of innocent people.”

What they did to Gordon Brown: Brown claimed that hackers had reverse-engineered his phone number, faked his voice to secure personal information from his lawyer, paid an investigator to break into the police national computer searching for personal information about him, and accessed his medical records. In his Guardian column, Brown wrote that after he passed to police new evidence to support these allegations, Scotland Yard assigned a special inquiry team, part of its central specialist crime command, to review the material to determine if there are grounds for criminal prosecution.

The Murdoch executives have lied for years: The Murdoch executives told the inquiry that they had spent 30,474 pounds on PIs between 2005 and 2011 and none of the payments had been to conduct unlawful acts. The claimants have now submitted to the court an audit of the accounts of 12 PI contractors. It shows that one PI contractor alone was paid 323,285 pounds during that period. Indeed, the discovery process has led to the startling claim that the Murdoch organization spent well over 1 million pounds on PIs “to unlawfully gather information” at that time. The audit comments that the version given to Leveson was “grossly misleading.”

The urgency for a criminal investigation: As a result of these far broader new allegations, a person familiar with those involved tells me that Brown is likely to be followed by at least two other prominent politicians in pressing Scotland Yard to consolidate the case for a criminal prosecution, which could follow even if Harry were to accept a settlement and there was no trial.

A showdown between Prince Harry & Rebekah Brooks: The threat of a trial feels like the final showdown between them. Everything that would spill into public view in a trial would tell another story: that years of discovery in a civil case has uncovered far more than the police investigation that led to the only criminal trial resulting from the hacking, in 2014, when Brooks was found not guilty of a charge to pervert the course of justice. As things stand, the new Scotland Yard review of that evidence would likely not be completed before the scheduled January trial. A source with knowledge of evidence uncovered in recent discovery told me that there were thousands of pages of witness statements not yet disclosed in court papers that would greatly assist the police investigation.

Harry is leading the charge: Prince Harry’s prominence and his financial resources have powered up this fourth and final wave of litigation by victims of hacking. The other claimants in this group could have never on their own amassed such a formidable challenge to the Murdoch lawyers. Harry has cast himself as the lone avenger for many years of pain inflicted by the lawless pursuers of (and profiteers from) royal celebrities. Although he believes he is acting in the public interest, this is not to be confused with the palace interest, in which he is certainly at odds with his father, the king. That breach is widened by Harry’s belief that the palace communications team frequently briefs against him and his wife Meghan Markle.

A pyrrhic victory: Whatever the result, Harry is trying to litigate something that can’t be litigated. A victory in court against Murdoch would be a famous one, but it would not change the fundamental animus against Harry in the trinity of London tabloids: the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, and—most repugnant of all, the sui generis of the form—The Sun. Harry is the most unsettling force ever to break from the disciplines of the institution he was born into, even more so than his mother, Princess Diana, who provided the closest he ever got to knowing what a real family meant.

[From Vanity Fair]

“That breach is widened by Harry’s belief that the palace communications team frequently briefs against him and his wife Meghan Markle.” Ah, yes, wherever would Harry get this “belief.” Harry knows that the palace briefs against him constantly, still, to this day. Harry knows that the palace has been briefing against him constantly for years. As for the tea about Gordon Brown and the wealth of evidence already compiled in the civil case… I don’t have a lot of hope or faith in the British criminal justice system. They are fundamentally compromised by the very thing they are supposed to be investigating. The tabloids paying private investigators for dirt on royals and politicians are the same tabloids paying cops and prosecutors for the dirt. The fact is, Harry would also admit that even if he wins this lawsuit, it doesn’t change the fundamental situation with the British media and the left-behind Windsors. If anything, the British tabloids will be even angrier and they’ll lash out at him even harder. And to that I say, I hope Harry tells them all to kiss his ginger ass.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images. Covers courtesy of The Sun.

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

23 Responses to “VF: Prince Harry’s civil case against the Sun should be a criminal investigation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hypocrisy says:

    I hope Prince Harry gets everything he wanted entered into the court records.. I feel like that is his goal, not the money.

    • Jasper says:

      I feel the same. Once it’s out in the open and made part of the court and historical record, not only himself and Meghan, but also his mom, will be vindicated.

  2. Lavendel says:

    These pig cheeks are again talking about “… old friends have said …”. They know exactly how much these lies destroyed Prince Harry’s relationships in the past. Anyone who wants any more confirmation about the deliberately psychologically corrosive articles going Prince Harry finds it daily in this filth.
    Yes, these media outlets should be prosecuted. It is absolutely not normal what they do to people. Why does anyone find what they do acceptable?

    • sunnyside up says:

      They can say what they like to their readers about Harry as long as it is bad because of the colour of his MILs skin.

  3. Lady Esther says:

    Which is the latest verdict we’re expecting soon – it’s Harry’s case against the Daily Mail, right?

  4. Nanea says:

    The Scum is such a disgusting PoS, and Murdoch and his ilk are no better.

    They blagged their way into hospital files of Gordon Brown’s daughter, who died when she was only ten days old.

    And they also got their hands on the medical files of the younger son, who was sick with cystic fibrosis, and published those. Of course. Suffering parents *and* kids be damned.

    This is so vile and gut-wrenching at the same time.

    Not mentioning the hundreds (at least) members of the ordinary public who don’t have Harry’s kind of resources, but who were equally tortured in public.

    And Meghan.

    And Dan Rotten’s victim Caroline Flack.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    The British press likes to pretend that the estrangement between Harry and his family is because he gave up his duties and he attacked the Royal Family but the one of the main reasons why they’re still estranged is because of his lawsuits against the press and the family’s partnership with them.

    • Becks1 says:

      and one of the reasons they walked away was because of that partnership, which resulted in years of abuse at H&M.

  6. molly says:

    “… his mother, Princess Diana, who provided the closest he ever got to knowing what a real family meant.” Direct hit.

  7. Mads says:

    I sincerely hope Harry goes all the way to trial against both Murdoch’s ‘The Sun’ and the publisher of the Daily Mail’ yet I fear he will be offered extortionate sums of money and forced into settling both cases. They have seen his success against Mirror Group and will desperately seek to avoid everything being unearthed during a trial and the associated worldwide reporting.
    Remember Hugh Grant had to settle because his lawyers knew that any monetary damages awarded by the court would be less than the Mirror had offered and he would then be liable for all legal costs, estimated to be around £10 million. Harry has very deep pockets but even he cannot swallow two sets of legal bills where the costs could run into the low tens of millions for each.

  8. Rnot says:

    The British tabloid media could not exist if the British people didn’t buy the products of their lawbreaking and abuse. The public doesn’t just tolerate this, they fund it. And I judge them for it.

    • H says:

      Same, tbh. These tabloids exist bc the heart of the people in England is dark and ugly.

    • bisynaptic says:

      Yes, but the public isn’t necessarily aware of how the sausage gets made and hasn’t signed off on it.

      • kirk says:

        Why wouldn’t the tabloid buying, headline clicking public be “aware of how the sausage gets made”? It’s been more than ten years since Leveson Inquiry Part 1 was set up. Admittedly, they’re at a disadvantage in learning the whole truth with publications paying £billions to make the problem go away without disclosure. But still, when 5,000 hacking victims of News of the World were identified, why would anyone think the problem would be easily, or immediately, solved?

  9. Jais says:

    Good for Harry. I hope the Gordon brown info leads to a criminal case. I hope Rebekah brooks goes down.

  10. ML says:

    Even if Harry cannot ultimately win against the tabloids, I hope he does do lasting damage that will lead to true changes.
    Clive Irving is someone I associate with The Daily Beast—I looked ip to see if he still wrote for them since I no longer am subscribed. He does. As does William’s mouthpiece, Tom Sykes. Let’s just say that I find it very interesting that he wrote this article for Vanity Fair. He did a great job here.

  11. smee says:

    I think Chuck and Bill know he’s going to win this and they’re going to look bad (worse) as a result thus all the “title taking” talk and “you aren’t invited to my coronation” tantrums.

    Honestly, it’ll be the end of this chapter of his life and he’ll have been proven right, which is sweet.

  12. JennyH says:

    I went back and read the VF article, and right off the bat Clive Irving disses Prince Harry’s memoir, calling it “glib.” RUDE! It seems that whenever a Fleet Street journalist writes something that isn’t anti-Sussex, they have to add in an insult for good measure.

    • kirk says:

      There’s a companion piece by Irving in earlier VF, “Rupert Murdoch’s Family Battle Proves He’s Losing Control.” Irving has had Rupert animus for a while; still think he’s wrong about Lachlan being a moderate. Irving is a former Sunday Times managing editor, but a longtime Sag Harbor, NY resident. However, like other Britexpats adopting a faux American mantle, I suspect he had his fingers crossed behind his back when they asked him to renounce loyalty to kings or queens outside the U.S. You might recall Clive Irving giving props to Kitty & Klan, while dissing Meghan and Harry — for production values? 🙄 https://www.celebitchy.com/794612/prince_williams_earthshot_will_eclipse_the_production_standards_of_the_ripple_of_hope/

      • kirk says:

        Re: oops about “Lachlan being a moderate,” meant to say Irving is wrong about James being a moderate.

  13. bisynaptic says:

    “Whatever the result, Harry is trying to litigate something that can’t be litigated. A victory in court… would not change the fundamental animus against Harry in the trinity of London tabloids: the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, and… The Sun.”
    —Harry isn’t trying to win a popularity contest with the tabloid press.