LONDON — The start of Prince Harry’s anticipated trial against British tabloids was thrown into uncertainty on Tuesday due to unexpected last-minute settlement discussions that postponed the proceedings. This case, which targets Rupert Murdoch’s publishing entities, represents Harry’s quest to hold them accountable for years of alleged unlawful intrusions into his personal life.
Should the Duke of Sussex decide to resolve his claims against the publishers of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World through a settlement, it would represent a significant departure from his initial commitment to confront them in court and reveal their alleged misconduct. At 40 years old, Harry is currently one of just two individuals who continue to pursue legal action against News Group Newspapers, with numerous other claimants having opted for settlements following allegations of phone hacking and other illegal surveillance tactics.
Among the myriad of over 1,300 claims stemming from a major phone hacking scandal—which ultimately led to the closure of News of the World in 2011—Harry’s lawsuit is now the closest to going to trial. The hearing, originally set to commence on Tuesday morning, was pushed back by one day as discussions about a potential out-of-court settlement unfolded in court.
Judge Timothy Fancourt’s refusal to allow an extended delay until the following Wednesday prompted attorneys on both sides to indicate they would appeal his decision, effectively stalling the trial further. The attorney representing News Group, Anthony Hudson, noted that discussions were progressing well regarding a “very substantial sum” if trial proceedings were initiated prior to completing “very intense negotiations.”
This trial was slated to be Harry’s second engagement with London’s High Court in his ongoing struggle against the press, which he holds responsible for the tragic death of his mother, Princess Diana, in 1997. She was killed in a car accident while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris. Harry has also indicated that media harassment has contributed to his and his wife Meghan Markle’s decision to step back from royal duties and relocate to the United States in 2020.
The Duke has revealed that his confrontations with the media have strained his family ties, yet he feels driven to pursue justice to expose the alleged wrongdoings of the tabloids. His previous legal success against the publisher of the Daily Mirror in 2023, alongside another case ongoing against the Daily Mail’s publisher, underscores his determination.
Harry accuses journalists from News Group and the private investigators they employed of invading his privacy through illicit means while trying to unearth information about him and his family from 1996 to 2011. Another claimant in the case, Tom Watson, a former deputy leader of the Labour Party, indicated that his voicemails were intercepted during his probe into the hacking scandal.
Their legal counsel has pointed out that these newspapers allegedly engaged in a widespread practice of deception to procure confidential records related to medical, phone, and flight history and even bugged homes and vehicles. Furthermore, the allegations suggest that executives actively concealed these illegal activities by destroying evidence.
News Group has firmly rejected these allegations, asserting in a statement that they are “wrong, unsustainable, and strongly denied.” Accusations have also been leveled against former executives, including Will Lewis, now heading the Washington Post, and Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK, both of whom have denied any misconduct. Although Brooks was acquitted of conspiracy charges in a 2014 criminal trial, a former colleague, Andy Coulson, faced imprisonment for his role in the scandal.
News Group insists on denying all accusations and claims that Harry failed to file his lawsuit within the requisite six-year timeframe. While the company did apologize to victims of the News of the World phone hacking scandal in 2011, it has never admitted liability regarding The Sun.
The anticipated trial is projected to unfold over a span of 10 weeks, with Harry expected to take the stand over multiple days in February. His participation represents a rare instance of a senior royal member engaging in court testimony, a feat last accomplished by Prince Albert Edward, Queen Victoria’s eldest son, in the late 19th century. This ongoing legal battle has positioned Harry at odds with royal family traditions, which typically promote a policy of avoidance regarding the press, famously adhering to a “never complain, never explain” mantra.
Additionally, in court documents, Harry disclosed that his father, King Charles III, expressed opposition to his legal pursuits. He also mentioned that his older brother, William, the Prince of Wales, had accepted a “huge sum” in a settlement concerning a grievance against News Group. Harry has emphasized that his determination to confront tabloid abuses is central to his ongoing family discord.
“The mission continues, but it has, yes, it’s caused, as you say, part of a rift,” Harry stated in the documentary “Tabloids On Trial.” He conveyed a wish that his family would have united with him in standing against the media’s transgressions, while reiterating, “But, you know, I’m doing this for my reasons.”
Amid significant financial pressures, several of Harry’s fellow claimants had already settled, including actor Hugh Grant, who stated he was compelled to accept a considerable settlement to avoid potential legal costs reaching 10 million pounds ($12.3 million), despite winning the trial.
Under English civil law, claimants whose court judgments fall below offered settlement amounts are required to cover both parties’ legal expenses, a design meant to discourage lengthy legal proceedings. Not deterred by the financial risks, Harry expressed in December that he remained resolute, asserting, “They’ve settled because they’ve had to settle. One of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability, because I’m the last person that can actually achieve that.”
The last-minute postponement of the trial occurred under peculiar circumstances. After a lunch break, attorneys re-entered the court seeking another delay while sidestepping explicit discussions regarding the potential settlement at hand. Judge Fancourt acknowledged their elusive approach but expressed disappointment over the failure to reach an agreement despite ample time for negotiation.
“I am not persuaded that if there is a real will to settle this, first that it could not have been achieved by today,” he declared. After granting a brief recess to allow Harry’s attorney to modify any potentially controversial remarks before the opening statement, it was revealed that the parties were opting to appeal. Ultimately, Judge Fancourt remarked that he would not obstruct access to justice for parties wishing to seek recourse through the Court of Appeal.
