Claims made against Rupert Murdoch by Prince Harry as part of an unlawful information-gathering claim cannot be tested at trial, a High Court judge has ruled.
It was claimed at an earlier hearing that Murdoch knew of unlawful activity at his newspapers as early as 2004 but “turned a blind eye” to the allegations while overseeing a “culture of impunity”.
Lawyers for Harry and others asked the High Court for permission to update parts of their case against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun and the News of the World.
But on Tuesday Mr Justice Fancourt ruled the allegations against the “trophy targets” of Murdoch and some other senior executives could not be taken to trial as they added “nothing material” to the case and some amounted to a “new case”.
Related
For example the judge said the case could not include a new section containing allegations against the management and standards committee (MSC), led by now-Washington Post chief executive William Lewis, which ultimately made the decision to hand over emails revealing journalists’ sources to the Met Police.
The disallowed allegations included that the MSC “was aware of and concealed destruction of evidence of wrongdoing; deliberately failed to cooperate with the MPS in the investigation of wrongdoing at NGN, to the knowledge of Mr Murdoch and other senior executives including Mr [Simon] Greenberg and Mr Lewis (who are already named… in relation to allegations of destruction of evidence of wrongdoing); and continued the practice of buying the silence of those ex-employees who knew about senior executives’ involvement in and their knowledge of VMI [voicemail interception]”.
Mr Justice Fancourt said: “I also consider that there is a desire on the part of those running the litigation on the claimants’ side to shoot at ‘trophy’ targets, whether those are political issues or high-profile individuals.
“This cannot become an end in itself: it only matters to the court so far as it is material and proportionate to the resolution of the individual causes of action. The trial is not an inquiry.”
The judge also ruled that Harry could not introduce new allegations from 1994, 1995 and 2016 or new allegations of phone hacking.
He said: “It therefore seems to me preferable, in order to avoid or limit prejudice to NGN in preparing for trial and for broader case management reasons, for the 1994/1995 claim and the 2016 claim to be left to be dealt with in a new claim, if the duke wishes to bring one.
“Proceeding in this way will remove the greater disclosure burden from the existing claim, avoid the need to investigate quite different facts at different times in a short period of time, and ensure that there is no risk to the trial date or undue prejudice caused by granting permission for other amendments.”
Other amendments to the case were permitted, for example that Harry could “in principle” change the details of his case to name “certain further journalists and private investigators” and bring allegations of “landline voicemail interception”.
Mr Justice Fancourt said: “I am disposed to take a restrictive approach to allowing the proposed amendments, on grounds of delay and because permitting all the amendments will either prejudice the trial date or at least create an unlevel playing field on which NGN is running uphill to be ready for the full trial.
“The claimants have sought to introduce a vast quantity of new allegations and material, much of which is likely to be highly contentious, and there is no prospect of the time listed for trial accommodating these allegations.”
At the hearing in March, barrister David Sherborne, representing the individuals, said it should be “inferred from his dominant position” at NGN that Murdoch “was aware of the nature and extent of NGN’s wrongdoing” when allegations were first published by The Guardian in 2009.
But Anthony Hudson KC, for NGN, said the new claims were “made entirely in the abstract” and were “designed to grab headlines” rather than progress the claims.
Mr Justice Fancourt also said Harry had not complied with an order made in July last year that barred him from bringing his phone-hacking allegations against The Sun and News of the World as part of the trial as he brought his claims too late.
The judge said Harry “has not removed from his claim the facts alleged solely in relation to phone hacking and accessory wrongs nor clarified the facts alleged in relation to the remaining causes of action, namely blagging of private information by journalists or private investigators, and other unlawful information gathering conducted by private investigators that is not accessory to actual or attempted phone hacking.
“The Duke will therefore be required to comply fully with the July 2023 Order if he intends to pursue his claim for these other alleged wrongs.”
News Group Newspapers ‘vindicated’ by judge
A spokesperson for News Group Newspapers said: “In 2011 an unreserved apology was made by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World.
“Since then, NGN has been paying financial damages to those with proper claims. In some cases, it has made commercial sense for both parties to come to a settlement agreement before trial to bring a resolution to the matter. As we reach the tail end of the litigation, NGN is drawing a line under the disputed matters.
“These civil proceedings have been running for more than a decade and deal with events 13-28 years ago.
“At a hearing in March 2024, the claimants sought to introduce wide-ranging allegations into their pleadings.
“NGN argued that a number of these were irrelevant to the fair and just determination of claims, and had nothing to do with seeking compensation for victims of phone hacking or unlawful information-gathering.
“The court in its judgment today has thoroughly vindicated NGN’s position and did not give permission to introduce large and significant portions of the amendments.”
The spokesperson added: “Many similar allegations were previously tested in the criminal courts or investigated by the police and the CPS between 2011-15.
“Today’s judgment has ruled that a significant amount of these amendments are not material or proportionate to the case… NGN welcomes the judge’s decisions and comments.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
