Evidence provided by the Duke of Sussex in his ongoing legal battle with parts of the British press has reportedly been called into question by a High Court judge.
Prince Harry’s explosive witness statement earlier this week claimed that the monarchy had made a “secret agreement” with Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper group that prevented him from bringing his phone hacking claims earlier.
But Mr Justice Fancourt said the duke’s testimony struck him as “troubling” because it contradicts his original claim that he was unable to sue prior to 2019 as he “did not have the knowledge” of phone hacking.
Lawyers for News Group Newspapers (NGN) are arguing that Harry’s case, and a similar one from the movie star Hugh Grant, must be thrown out on the grounds that they should have been brought earlier.
Harry, they say, was at the “epicentre” of the scandal and claim it is “fanciful” for him to suggest he did not have any knowledge of phone hacking prior to his action in 2019.
READ MORE: Harry and William peace hopes in ‘tatters’ after ‘£1m’ bombshell
In response, Harry submitted a 31-page witness statement in which he explains his timing was dictated by a “secret agreement” between the Royal Family and NGN, publisher of The Sun and now-defunct News of the World.
He said the agreement – alleged to have been approved by the late Queen Elizabeth II – stipulated that the Royal Family would not pursue NGN until after the group’s legal battle with other hacking claimants had drawn to a close and their claims would then be quietly “admitted or settled with an apology”.
NGN, however, denies the existence of any such arrangement.
Harry, who viewed proceedings via video link, says he first learned of the deal in 2012 and only brought his claim in 2019 after becoming frustrated with NGN “filibustering” on the deal.
But the Daily Mail reports that Mr Justice Fancourt questioned how Harry could state he did not have knowledge before 2019 to bring a claim while also alleging he was prevented from bringing one in 2012.
He said: “Another thing that is troubling me is what appears to be a factual inconsistency in the current pleaded case about the way the Duke of Sussex did not have the knowledge before 2019 to bring a claim and your proposed amendment which seems to say he would have brought a claim in 2012 except for the secret agreement.”
The judge also questioned why David Sherbourne, for Harry, had suddenly introduced this new evidence without making an application to submit it to the court.
He said Harry’s lawyers should have applied to the defendants so they had an opportunity to make submissions before updating the details of their case.
Harry’s legal team was then forced to make an application to introduce the duke’s claims of a “secret deal” into their evidence which was challenged by NGN.
NGN has previously settled a number of claims since the phone hacking scandal broke in relation to the News of the World, which shut down in 2011, but has consistently denied the occurance of any unlawful information gathering at The Sun.
