Judge rules Prince Harry’s trial against News Group Newspapers to go ahead

The Duke of Sussex has been dealt a fresh legal blow as he continues to fight his bitter, never-ending war with the UK press.

Prince Harry has been dealt a legal blow. Picture: Kate Green/Getty Images

COMMENT

Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex has a lot to answer for, but to my mind, there might be no greater charge than inadvertently forcing me to try and read weighty, turgid legal documents first thing in the morning.

But la plus ça change; another day, another Harry court case story.

Except that this time around, the news out of London is an entirely different kettle of fish – we have crossed a line, marked a new first, passed a milestone.

Harry has just heard something startling, something that I don’t think he has heard in a very long time: Essentially, the word “no”.

Someone authoritative, someone who is not some loopy one-time socialite or "It" girl or British columnist, someone who cannot be easily discounted, has just rejected part of the duke’s lawsuit.

Specifically – get your legal hats on here, chaps – Mr Justice Fancourt in the High Court has dealt a serious blow to the duke’s case against News Group Newspapers, knocking back part of his legal case. (NGN is owned by the same parent company as News Corp Australia, publisher of this masthead).

A judge has knocked back part of Prince Harry’s case. Picture: Kate Green/Getty Images

While Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that a trial could go ahead over Harry’s allegations of historic unlawful information gathering by The Sun, he threw out the duke’s allegations of phone hacking.

Mr Justice Fancourt also labelled Aitch’s case in regards to a supposed “secret agreement” between Buckingham Palace and NGN as “implausible” and “inherently unlikely”.

A quick bit of background at this point.

In April this year, Harry was doing his usual Harry routine – airing bombshell claims about the royal family, a penchant of the duke’s that has become so ubiquitous I reckon courtiers must have had to build a Palace rage room by this point.

So, as part of the case, Harry tendered a 31-page witness statement in which he alleged, among other jaw-droppers, that the late Queen had agreed to pursue legal action against NGN until King Charles stepped in and that his brother and jumper collector Prince William had gotten a “huge sum” in a private settlement with NGN, “seemingly with some favourable deal in return for him going ‘quietly’ so to speak”. (The “huge sum” was reportedly donated to charity).

Harry also said in his statement that the British public had been “brainwashed” by the media and that the tabloids had “weaponised” his mental health and had been “hoping for a total and very public breakdown”.

This is of course just one of the three witness statements Harry has penned of late, including lengthy ones for this case against the Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, and the Mirror Group Newspapers (55 pages). (Between these and the original 800 page draft of Spare, Harry must be running through Macbooks like a hot knife through organic locally-sourced butter).

Harry seems like a man simmering and stewing with anger and hurt over the treatment of his mother, his wife and himself by sections of Fleet Street. Picture: Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images

Which brings us to today, and that line, that first, that milestone I mentioned. What Friday’s ruling represents is the first time that a credible person has stood up and essentially called into question some of Harry’s account of events.

Because for year upon year now, all we have gotten is Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex’s truth. We have gotten their truth via TV interviews, print interviews, podcasts and six hours of soft-lit small screen emoting. At this stage the only medium left for them to share their journey is interpretative dance. (Heaven help us all).

And through this all, The Firm has largely remained silent. Oh yes, there was the history-maker of a statement after Oprah Winfrey that gave us “recollections may vary”, but those four sentences have constituted the entirety of the royal family’s resistance effort against the Sussexes’ deluge of claims.

That instance aside, the Palace has remained totally and utterly Easter Island-esque. Essentially, Harry and Meghan’s version has largely gone untested and unchallenged in any official way.

Until now.

This legal news caps off what would have to be one of the bumpiest periods for the duke and patron saint of London barristers.

Let us count the ways.

There was the end of the Sussexes’ Spotify deal, leaving them with no outlet for their his’n’hers audio absurdity. (Meghan’s Archetypes was an exercise in meaningless, self reverential gobbledygook that was trying so hard to sound brainy it nearly had leather patches on its elbows; Harry’s output consisted of coming up with dingbat ideas like interviewing tyrants about their childhood emotional hurts).

Harry and Meghan’s version of events has largely gone unchallenged – until now. Picture: Matt Dunham/Pool/AFP

There have also been a series of articles, crucially not appearing in Harry’s loathed British media, that painted the Sussexes’ attempts to build some sort of Obama-esque media empire in a grim light.

There was the Wall Street Journal (“Harry and Meghan Produce a Hollywood Flop: Themselves”), Bloomberg, (outing Harry’s embarrassing Trump and Putin childhood podcast idea) and Rolling Stone (“Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are in Their Flop Era”).

So too have big names (Spotify’s head of podcast innovation and monetisation; CEO of United Talent Agency) popped up to call them “f**king grifters” and the duchess “not a great talent”.

Meanwhile, as the Sussexes’ careers have lurched from hit to hit, Harry has been fighting not one or two but six court cases back in the UK. Six.

(Three of those cases are against UK media outlets over alleged hacking and unlawful information gathering and three are in connection with the Home Office removing the family’s government protection).

What is clear is that the Duke of Sussex clearly feels a burning sense of right and wrong and will go to what must be incredibly costly lengths (personally and financially) to fight all the fights on all these fronts.

While there is a certain admirable quality to his bulldog-like litigiousness, you have to also wonder about what happens next. Even if he wins every one of the cases he has left, will he ever feel that justice has truly been done?

Will Harry ever find peace? Picture: Netflix

Harry seems like a man simmering and stewing with anger and hurt over the treatment of his mother, his wife and himself by sections of Fleet Street and Crown Inc. But what happens once all his avenues for trying to hold these forces to account are exhausted? When he has no more cases he can bring or streaming companies willing to pay him to expound on his truth for their subscribers?

I suppose what I’m asking is, will it ever be enough? Can or will Harry ever find peace?

And on that existential cliffhanger, we will just have to wait and see.

A ruling is expected later this year in Harry’s case against the Mirror Group Newspapers and the NGN case will go to trial in January.

Maybe the answer here is looking us in the face – he should go the full Kim Kardashian and study law himself. Not only would it save him a motza on legal fees but, well … he might soon be in need of a new career to boot.

Daniela Elser is a writer, editor and a royal commentator with more than 15 years’ experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.