Harry can see emails between Sun publisher and Royal Household, judge rules

Harry, 40, is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) over allegations he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for the publisher, which also ran the now-defunct News Of The World.

He is suing alongside former Labour deputy leader Lord Watson, with a hearing on Friday told the pair are the only people continuing their claims and that 39 cases had been settled since a previous hearing in July.

Barristers for both sides returned to court in London to ask a judge to rule on preliminary issues before the trial in the two remaining cases, scheduled for January 2025, including whether Harry could be given access to emails between former NGN executives and members of the Royal Household between 2013 and 2019.

In a ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt said there was a “degree of speculation whether any of the documents sought are going to assist the claimant’s case”, but ruled there was “sufficient justification” for some of the emails to be provided.

He said: “In all the circumstances therefore, it seems to me that there is a limited category of documents where despite the element of delay, and despite the relative lateness of the application, there is a credible case for saying a full picture is necessary in the interest of justice.

“I will however limit the documents that are being sought.”

David Sherborne, for Harry, had asked for the green light to see “relevant emails sent between five email accounts of NGN employees and five employees of the Royal Household” between January 2013 and September 2019, which he said would be “highly relevant” to the case.

The NGN employees included Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News UK from September 2015, Robert Thomson, the chief executive of News Corp from 2013, and Mike Darcey, the chief executive of News UK until September 2015.

The Royal Household employees “are those involved in Royal Communications and the Private Secretaries to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II”, the court was told.

He said: “Emails between NGN and the Palace would be highly relevant in terms of providing the full picture not only as to the actual knowledge of the claimant but also as to the position in relation to constructive knowledge, based on what the Palace was being told by NGN.”

The court heard that some of the emails had already been provided by Ms Brooks as early as April last year, but Mr Sherborne said in court that these had been “cherry-picked”.

These emails included contain discussions between NGN and the Royal Household before Harry began legal action in 2019, and included conversations about a possible apology being made by the publisher.

Mr Sherborne said that the further emails, as well as searching for 12 search terms within the communications of the 10 individuals, “are highly likely to be relevant” and may lead the court to draw “inescapable inferences”.

NGN opposed the bid, with its barrister, Anthony Hudson KC, describing it as “disproportionate, time-consuming and costly” and that “extracting” the emails would cost £17,000.

He said: “We say that this is, in fact, clearly a speculative fishing exercise trying to find emails which does not have a proper basis in the claimant’s pleaded case, because it is not relevant to any of the issues in his claim. It is not necessary to ensure a fair trial.”

A spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011, an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World.

“The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with proper claims.

“In some disputed cases, it has made commercial sense 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.

“The civil proceedings have been running for more than a decade and deal with events 13-28 years ago. It is common practice, and indeed encouraged in litigation, to seek to settle claims outside court where both parties agree without the cost of a trial.”

A further hearing is expected to be held in early December, with the trial expected to last between six and eight weeks.