Phone-hacking and Home Office: What legal claims has Prince Harry been involved in?

The Duke of Sussex is heading to the High Court once again, but this time in a legal battle against The Sun over allegations of unlawful information gathering. Prince Harry alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for News Group Newspapers (NGN) titles and the now-defunct News of the World from the mid-1990s until 2016. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled on Thursday that Harry cannot bring his claim in relation to phone hacking , but that his claim over other allegations – including use of private investigators – should go ahead to a trial which is due to take place in January next year. The trial will hear claims that the tabloids had used investigators and blagging techniques to glean information on him and his friends, including details of his relationship with former girlfriend Chelsy Davy. As the duke gears up for the High Court again, we take a look at the legal cases the duke has been involved in recently: In May 2019, Harry accepted substantial damages and an apology from a news agency that took pictures of his home in the Cotswolds from a helicopter. Harry settled privacy and data protection claims against Splash News and Picture Agency over photographs ‘of and into the living area and dining area of the home and directly into the bedroom’. The court heard Splash agreed to pay damages and legal costs. The duke has brought legal action against the Home Office over the security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK. He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which falls under the remit of the Home Office – over his security, after being told he would no longer be given the ‘same degree’ of personal protective security when visiting. The duke’s legal team argue that the security arrangements set out in a letter from Ravec, and their application when he visited the UK in June 2021, were invalid due to ‘procedural unfairness’, and there will be a full High Court hearing to review the duke’s claim. Harry asked for permission to bring a second High Court challenge against the Home Office over a decision that he should not be allowed to pay privately for his protective security. However, this was refused in a ruling by Mr Justice Chamberlain in May. The duke is bringing a libel claim against ANL – the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday – over an article about his case against the Home Office. The story was published online and in the newspaper in February 2022 under the headline: ‘Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute’. Justin Rushbrooke KC, for Harry, said the Mail On Sunday article ‘purported to reveal, in sensational terms’ that information from court documents filed by the duke ‘contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK’. ANL is contesting the claim, arguing the article expressed an ‘honest opinion’ and did not cause ‘serious harm’ to his reputation. At a preliminary hearing in March, the High Court heard the duke’s bid to strike out ANL’s ‘honest opinion’ defence or grant judgment in his favour on it. A judgment is expected later this year. Harry is one of seven people, also including David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, who brought legal action against ANL over denied allegations it carried out or commissioned unlawful information gathering. The allegations include hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, ‘blagging’ private records and accessing and recording private phone conversations. ANL, which ‘firmly’ denies the allegations, asked a judge to rule in its favour without a trial, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought ‘far too late’. A judgment is expected later this year. The Duke of Sussex and others suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over alleged unlawful information gathering are waiting to find out whether they will win their case. Harry, 38, is suing MGN for damages, claiming journalists at its titles – the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People – were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called ‘blagging’ or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities. His case was heard alongside similar claims by actor Michael Turner, who is known professionally as Michael Le Vell and best known for playing Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, actress Nikki Sanderson and comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife Fiona Wightman. The allegations cover a period from as early as 1991 until at least 2011, the court was told. Harry faced eight hours of questioning over two days during a witness box appearance that drew the attention of the world’s media. It was thought to be the first time a senior member of the royal family has personally appeared in court proceedings since 2002, when the Princess Royal pleaded guilty to a charge under the Dangerous Dogs Act after her pet bit two children in Windsor Great Park. At the end of the hearing in June, Mr Justice Fancourt, the judge deciding the case, said that preparing his judgment would take ‘some time’. Harry is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World , over alleged unlawful information gathering. The duke alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for the papers. 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 cannot 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 which is due to take place in January next year. The judge also refused to allow the duke to rely on an alleged ‘secret agreement’ between the royal family and senior executives working for media mogul Rupert Murdoch as part of his claim. A spokesperson for NGN said after the ruling that the judge had ‘dismissed’ the duke’s phone hacking claims against its two titles in a ‘significant victory’ for the publisher, adding that the judgment ‘substantially reduces the scope of his legal claim’. The judge said a trial should determine whether Harry’s claim over other unlawful information gathering was brought within the six-year time limit for such claims.