Prince Harry accused of ‘scattergun’ approach in phone hacking case

Proposed claims allege new categories including intercepting voicemails left on landlines

Proposed claims allege new categories including intercepting voicemails left on landlines

Prince Harry has been accused of using a “scattergun approach” to his claims of wrongdoing by the publisher of The Sun after adding a “huge” number of fresh allegations to his case.

The Duke of Sussex’s legal team has asked a High Court judge to extend the parameters of his hacking claim against News Group Newspapers (NGN) by including allegations that date back to 1994.

By expanding the scope of his case to events that happened 30 years ago, the Duke wants the court to consider claims against additional journalists and additional articles not included in his current claim. He also wants the court to consider events dating from as recently as 2016, rather than the current 2011 end date of his claim.

Prince Harry (right) in 1994 aged 10. NGN argue investigating this far back should be barred by the statute of limitations
Prince Harry (right) in 1994 aged 10. NGN argue investigating this far back should be barred by the statute of limitations – THE FINCHER FILES/ POPPERFOTO
During a preliminary hearing on Thursday, Mr Justice Fancourt was told that the proposed claims included new categories of alleged wrongdoing by NGN, including the interception of voicemail messages left on landline telephones as well as mobiles, and also listening in live to mobile phone calls.

Lawyers for NGN argued in documents submitted to the court that the Duke was making unspecified allegations dating back decades and they should be barred by the statute of limitations on such offences because he could not argue that he had only just found out about them.

The Duke, the actor Hugh Grant and more than 40 others are suing NGN and the now-defunct News Of The World, over alleged unlawful information gathering and invasion of privacy. A trial has been scheduled for January 2025.

In a written outline of NGN’s defence, barrister Anthony Hudson KC said there was no “cogent link” between the new allegations and those that the court is currently due to consider.

He said: “This scattergun approach does not meet the requirements of … tests in relation to the pleading of similar fact evidence. Nor does it conform to the requirement that a trial be restricted to the issues necessary for and proportionate to the fair determination of the dispute.”

He said it was “wholly inappropriate” for the Duke to impose new claims on the court “on the speculative basis that, among the myriad of non-specific allegations made against undefined journalists across two newspapers throughout the period of 1996 and 2011, some isolated examples might ultimately prove to be relevant to some unspecified unlawful information gathering allegations”.

David Sherborne, for the Duke, said his client wanted to extend the scope of the case to 1994, when: “The Duke of Sussex was 10, but there was information relating to his welfare, relationships and his mother, Princess Diana, and her state of mind … and right up to 2016. That’s the relevant period of dispute.”

David Sherborne (L), said the extension included information relating to the Duke’s welfare, relationships and Princess Diana
David Sherborne (L), said the extension included information relating to the Duke’s welfare, relationships and Princess Diana – ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP
He said that in 2016, “the defendant instructed one of its regular private investigators in the US, Danno Hanks”, adding: “What we say he did was obtain private information in the form of a report about the Duke of Sussex’s new girlfriend, Meghan Markle, in order to obtain further information about their relation for the purposes of an article in The Sun.”

Mr Hudson said the 2016 allegation could not be considered by the court because it involved a New York-based journalist allegedly hiring a California-based private detective to carry out work in the US, therefore the alleged wrongdoing occurred wholly in the US and cannot be examined by a British court.

Mr Hudson also argues that if the judge allowed events from 1994 to be included in the case: “NGN would have to divert huge resources to investigating these new allegations at a late stage … these investigations and further steps will be onerous, and particularly given that the extensive early allegations [from 1994-1995] concern a period before electronic documents were in routine use and will require NGN to seek to locate, and elicit information from, witnesses in relation to allegations which date back 30 years.”

Mr Hudson has previously suggested that the case is being used “as some kind of substitute for a public inquiry or similar”.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.