Erin Molan: Prince Harry tries to prove his defamation case with the absence of any evidence

When asked if he had any evidence of phone hacking by newspapers, Prince Harry told the High Court “No”, reports a stunned Erin Molan.

There’s one personal attribute that makes almost every character flaw bearable and that is self-awareness.

You can be all sorts of things if you are acutely aware of it.

Self-awareness also helps keep those pesky flaws in check. Without it, you might do something really silly like, well I don’t know, sue the UK tabloids with no actual evidence because your feelings have been hurt and your girlfriend dumped you.

This week, amongst some real and some sombre news, we’ve watched with a modicum of interest (for want of a better word) Prince Harry take the stand in his phone hacking case against a number of UK newspapers.

The first royal to take the witness stand in 100 years, they say, and, after three days of watching the “spare” in action, I can understand why it’s been something avoided by almost all of his illustrious ancestors.

Evidence is key in court, in fact it’s almost the most important thing. Theoretically it’s well-nigh impossible to prove an allegation without it.

So when Prince Harry was asked by the presiding judge if he was aware of any evidence he was hacked, and he responded “No”, I was stunned.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, gives a thumbs up as he leaves after giving evidence at the Mirror Group phone hacking trial.

He proceeded to inform the court “that’s part of the reason I am here”.

Sorry, what?

I’m not normally surprised by anything that comes out of the Duke of Sussex’s mouth, but this floored me.

He appears to be using a High Court case as a fact-finding mission. Hoping to maybe stumble across some evidence along the way.

Now I’m no legal expert, but unfortunately I’ve paid a few lawyers over the years, so I called and renewed my acquaintance with a few select legal eagles (for no fee, I hope) just to ensure that this isn’t actually how the court system works.

The following are direct quotes:

“This is bizarre. What are his lawyers doing?”

“You cannot use a high court for a fact-finding mission. You initiate proceedings because the facts you have support the allegations you made. You are seeking an outcome consistent with the facts you have, not those you hope to find.”

“The judge has far more patience than I. I would have thrown it out!”

Prince Harry arrives to give evidence at the trial.

Now, as always with Prince Harry, I make the point that the hurt and distress he feels is clearly real to him.

I don’t doubt that for a second, but he’s got to reach a point where he accepts his “lot in life” and moves on. It’s a ‘lot’ most people in the world would happily accept, downside and all.

Harry has spoken this week about the impact of tabloid reporting on his relationship with former flame Chelsy Davy and has blamed the press for it ending.

I’d hazard a guess the “act” of him taking drugs, visiting strippers and “flirting with a brunette” who sat on his lap at a party were the bigger issues for Chelsy, rather than any press coverage of them.

When you constantly complain about the hand you are dealt hoping to garner sympathy, and it doesn’t work out that way, there are lessons to be learned.

At present I’m afraid the evidence strongly suggests that Harry doesn’t seem to be learning at all.

Prince Harry and former girlfriend Chelsy Davy in 2010

A few days before the trial, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released an official statement graphically informing us of the “near catastrophic” high-speed car chase that took place with paparazzi on the streets of New York.

Again, evidence (or a significant lack thereof) proved to be a problem for the Prince. In fact the only shreds of it that emerged disputed his version of events.

It’s extremely hard to feel sorry for Harry this week.

The problem with attacking the press is that, at the very least, you need to be consistent.

You cannot tap into the beast when it suits you for a pretty penny but then believe oneself entitled to tap out when it doesn’t.

Our world doesn’t work like that.

You either don’t buy in or you do, and if you do, even a little bit, you can’t then complain, or sue, when the parts you can’t control aren’t so flattering.

I think my Sky News Australia colleague Piers Morgan said it best this week when asked about disparaging comments the prince had made about him from the stands: “I wish him luck with his privacy campaign and look forward to reading it in his new book.’’

If the biggest issue you have in your life is an inundation of press coverage, while you live in multimillion-dollar luxury funded by the interest generated by those same stories, then half your luck negotiating that irritating little moral dilemma.

And I’d also make the point that if we are looking closely at the immoral sharing of the private information of royals, I suspect Kate and Wills might argue that Harry’s sharing of private text messages and conversations of theirs in his own book (read in part by billions) are just as bad, if not worse, than anything Harry is alleging.

If the law has been broken and culprits penalised, we shall join Harry in letting out a cheer that will be heard from London to Sydney.

If it hasn’t, I guess we shall continue to read and listen to the important, meaningful, informative and entertaining material that comes our way.

And just occasionally divert our attention and thoughts to the antics of the rich and famous, who want to be richer and more famous — on their own terms, in their own indulgent world.