Harry And A Mail Legal Smear

In case anyone out there did not know, the Duke of Sussex has hit the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker with a lawsuit. And the iron law of the Mail titles and lawsuits is that the party taking out said lawsuit should be subjected to the most vicious, personal and generally bad faith smears that the Dacre doggies can muster. Including falsehood and misinformation.

The Mail also didn't give a crap about Sinéad O'Connor until they could make money off of her death

Both the latter attributes are on display this morning as the Mail has howled “HARRY’S HACKING CLAIM THROWN OUT BY COURT”. The supporting article tells “PRINCE Harry's evidence was ruled 'implausible' as his phone-hacking claim against The Sun was thrown out yesterday. A High Court judge said there was 'a lack of credibility' about the duke's claims”. Do go on.

“And Mr Justice Fancourt dismissed as improbable Harry's story that Buckingham Palace had struck a secret deal behind his back. He said the Duke of Sussex had signed two 'statements of truth' that were 'inconsistent' with his evidence …His excoriating 40-page judgment is believed to be the first time the evidence of a senior royal has been tested in this way”.

There is more. “Beneath the crest of Harry's father the King at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that the duke's case had 'not reached the necessary threshold of plausibility and cogency’. The duke, 38, is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, alleging phone hacking and other unlawful activities were used to write stories about him”. And yet more.

“Yesterday, the phone-hacking elements of the case were thrown out after the publisher successfully argued Harry had left it too late to bring his case. By law, claimants must launch a case within six years, and the judge said there was 'no doubt' the duke had known as long ago as 2012 that he had been hacked by the News of the World”. “Phone hacking elements”? What that?

“NGN hailed the ruling as 'a significant victory' - but it still faces a trial scheduled for January on the other aspects of the case, which Harry's lawyer David Sherborne claimed were 'the majority' of the allegations”. So it isn’t just a “hacking claim”, is it? What are these “other aspects” of which they speak?

“Despite the setback to the prince, the rest of his case will continue to trial, with The Sun facing serious claims that it used private eyes to snoop on the fifth in line to the throne”. Aha. So, in typical style, the Mail strips out the part of the story it would prefer its readers not to know about, yet grudgingly mentions it after those readers will already have made their minds up.

What the f***'s this got to do with me, c***?!?!?

To see more clearly how the Mail operates, let’s see how the Guardian has reported the news. “Prince Harry’s lawsuit against Sun publisher can go to trial, judge rules … High court rules prince’s claims of illegal information gathering can proceed but phone-hacking allegations cannot” is the headline.

Do go on. “At a hearing in April, NGN asked Mr Justice Fancourt to throw out the duke’s case, arguing it was brought too late because he should have known sooner he had a potential claim. In a ruling on Thursday, the judge concluded that Harry could not bring his claim relating to phone hacking, but that his claim over other allegations - including use of private investigators - should go ahead to a trial, due to take place in January next year”.

And the Judge noted “‘Knowing or being on notice of a worthwhile claim for voicemail interception does not of itself amount to knowledge or notice of a worthwhile claim for other forms of [unlawful information gathering]’ … Whether Harry should have known about other forms of unlawful information gathering was ‘an issue that should be determined only at a trial, with a fuller evidential picture’”. Which will happen next January.

The Guardian also reminds readers “[Judge] Fancourt ruled in May that a claim by the actor Hugh Grant in relation to the Sun over alleged unlawful information gathering - other than allegations of phone hacking - can go ahead to be tried next January”. What the Mail makes sure it doesn’t tell you.

Another item the Mail manages not to tell its readers is this one: “Harry has been involved in six legal battles at the high court in recent months. His civil litigation has seen him bring claims against three major newspaper publishers over allegations of unlawful information gathering”. One of which is Associated Newspapers - which publishes the Mail titles.

The Mail reminds us once again that the power of our free and fearless press rests on its ability not only on what it decides to tell its readers, but also on what it decides not to tell its readers. Today’s screaming front page headline is a superb example of the latter. And no doubt there will be more.

Why did Haz’n’Megs relocate to the USA? Have a look at today’s Daily Mail.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton