Prince Harry admits his memoir contradicts his evidence at phone hacking trial
Harry admitted a key detail in Spare contradicted a claim in his witness statement during a tense day in court in his phone hacking trial.
Royals
Don't miss out on the headlines from Royals. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Prince Harry has faced a tough grilling in a London court as he gave evidence in his phone hacking case against multiple British newspapers.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the Duke of Sussex, 38, admitted that a claim made in his explosive memoir Spare, released in January this year, was contradicted in his 55-page witness statement tendered to court.
Harry is among multiple claimants suing Mirror Group Newspapers. He accuses journalists from tabloid newspapers The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The Sunday People of using illegal methods, including phone hacking, to obtain stories on him during multiple periods between 1996 and 2011.
He the most senior member of the royal family to be cross-examined since the 1890s.
As the duke took the stand, questions swirled over whether he had wanted to meet with Princess Diana’s butler, Paul Burrell, after the former royal employee gave interviews following her 1997 death.
According to his witness statement, Harry had “very strong feelings” about how indiscreet Mr Burrell had been and never wanted to see him again.
“I had made up my mind about the kind of person I thought Paul was and was firmly against meeting him at this point in my life,” he wrote in the statement.
However, as Andrew Green, the lawyer representing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), pointed out in court, Harry had written in Spare that he wanted to meet with Mr Burrell to hold him accountable for his actions.
“We welcomed such a meeting. To one newspaper he vowed he’d love to give us a piece of his mind. I waited anxiously for the meeting. It didn’t happen. I told myself shame,” Harry explained in his book.
In court, he admitted he “can’t remember” which version was true.
“The time gap between the original article and when I wrote this book was rather a large gap between the two,” he said.
Mr Green then asked: “Your position is that at the time you didn’t want a meeting, or you did want a meeting, what is the true position?”
Harry replied: “I honestly can’t remember whether I wanted a meeting or not.”
However, he did confirm he called Mr Burrell a “two-faced s***” in 2003.
“I also would have used the phrase ‘two-face s***’, as is reported,” he admitted.
“That is the terminology I would use. I don’t specifically remember leaving a voicemail saying that because of the time that’s passed.”
During another tense moment during his cross-examination, Harry was pressed on whether reporters could have discovered the venue of his 16th birthday via legal avenues.
Harry had planned to celebrate the occasion in 2000 with a quiet meal with friends at an up-market London pub, but is alleging that paparazzi appeared during the event after discovering his whereabouts through phone hacking.
He claims the subsequent article – “3am – Harry’s Time At The Bar” – was obtained unlawfully.
“I was hoping to have a private lunch with friends and somehow a photographer found me and somehow a story ended up in the newspaper about it,” Harry said.
However, Mr Green then suggested that high-profile chef Eddie Baines, who was working at the bar in Chelsea at the time, could have leaked the details himself.
“As a chef I would imagine he would be quite busy to make a call,” Harry responded.
Mr Green pointed out that he would have had assistants on hand to help him, to which Harry responded: “I have no idea, I have never worked in a kitchen.”
The lawyer also questioned whether Harry could simply have been spotted walking on the way to the bar, to which Harry replied: “I don’t walk down the street.”
Harry feared he would be ‘ousted’ from family
As Harry took the stand, his 55-page witness statement to the court was released. In it, he got surprisingly political.
“Our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government, both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” he said in the statement.
“Democracy fails when your press fails to scrutinise and hold the government accountable, and instead chooses to get into bed with them so they can ensure the status quo.”
Harry also took issue with the media’s coverage of his mother, Princess Diana’s, years-long affair with James Hewitt, which took place between 1986 and 1991. He singled out and article in The Sunday People, published in 2002, which suggested their was a bid to steal a sample of his DNA to check his parentage.
“Numerous newspapers had reported a rumour that my biological father was James Hewitt, a man my mother had a relationship with after I was born,” Harry said (he was born in 1984).
“At the time of this article and others similar to it, I wasn’t actually aware that my mother hadn’t met Major Hewitt until after I was born.
“At the time, when I was 18 years old and had lost my mother just six years earlier, stories such as this felt very damaging and very real to me.
“They were hurtful, mean and cruel. I was always left questioning the motives behind the stories.
“Were the newspapers keen to put doubt into the minds of the public so I might be ousted from the royal family?”
Originally published as Prince Harry admits his memoir contradicts his evidence at phone hacking trial
Charles to ‘stay out’ of Republic debate
The King has issued a surprising response to a question about Australia’s future ahead of his five-day tour to the country later this week.
Charles won’t stop Australia axing monarchy
As King Charles gets set to fly to Australia, a royal spokesman has claimed he won’t stand in the way of Australia dropping the monarchy despite his “deep love and affection” for the country.