by A High Court judge has ordered Prince Harry to explain the destruction of drafts of his memoir ‘Spare’ when he sued the publisher of The Sun newspaper.
The Duke of Sussex is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) over alleged illegal intelligence gathering, with a major trial set for January next year.
Part of the case is whether Harry knew he might have a case against the newspaper publisher years ago, which would have barred his bid for damages because it was out of time.
NGN’s lawyers want to see draft copies of Duke’s memoir, as well as texts between him and ghostwriter JR Moehringer when the book was created after he brought the civil claim in 2019.
But Harry’s legal team said drafts of the book have been “destroyed” and all messages have now been deleted.
But Judge Fancourt ruled Thursday that the Duke must now try to recover that matter.
“An attempt should be made to retrieve the Signal messages believed to have been deleted,” he said.
“The claimant must make a witness statement as to how the messages were deleted and the drafts destroyed, after the commencement of these proceedings.”
The judge took a broadside at Harry and his legal team after learning that the Duke himself had been carrying out much of the exposure exercise ahead of the civil trial in January next year.
“The majority of the search and selection of documents for disclosure was handled by Duke himself in California,” the judge said.
A solicitor suggested Harry was “an old hand at dealing with revelations”, following a previous legal battle against the publisher of the Daily Mirror over phone hacking.
But the judge decided that he might not understand the types of documents that have to be handed over when he first becomes aware of a possible case against NGN.
“The question of knowledge is a simple question and it is a broad question of exposure,” he said.
“Sometimes I get the impression in this claim that even the claimant’s lawyers don’t seem to fully address the issue of information, despite it being detailed in the defendant’s correspondence.
“It wouldn’t be surprising if the claimant himself didn’t fully understand or address it.”
The judge added: “It is not appropriate in my judgment, in a case of this nature, to leave document searches and assessment of relevance to the claimant personally.”
The judge ruled that Duke’s lawyers should conduct renewed searches, and he should write to his former lawyers at Harbottle and Lewis to request more documents for possible disclosure.
Two of King Charles’ top aides have also been drawn into the bitter legal battle.
The judge has instructed Prince Harry to write to Sir Clive Alderton, the King’s Private Secretary, and to Royal Treasurer Sir Michael Stevens to request documents that may be relevant.
Earlier, David Sherborne, who represented the Duke, contested the disclosure argument, calling it a “classic fishing exercise”.
Harry claims he was the target of illegal intelligence gathering by The Sun and the now defunct News of the World newspaper for several years.
In preparation for next year’s trial, Harry says he has already scoured his California home for physical documents and conducted a digital search of his former Royal email account.
He says he has confirmed that old laptops and phones, as well as a defunct Hotmail account, would not help the situation.
He said he has made “extensive enquiries” with members of the Royal Family, and has spoken to Royal aides Lord Christopher Geidt, Sally Osman, Sir David Manning and Nick Loughran to “confirm they do not have the relevant documents “.
Harry faced allegations of “obfuscation” in the disclosure process, with NGN counsel Anthony Hudson KC suggesting 11,000 documents currently under review should be “pulled out of the claimant kicking and screaming”.
Mr Hudson also said it was “shocking and extraordinary” that two hard drives he believed contained relevant material had been destroyed.
Mr Sherborne revealed that the publisher of The Sun newspaper and the now defunct News of the World was prepared to go to trial in January this year, without requests for further documents.
“The Claimant opposes the disclosure request. It’s a classic ‘fishing trip’,” he explained in written submissions.
He said that suggestions that the Duke was responsible for delays were “monstroous”, adding: “It is the defendant who has failed to seek disclosure in any form in a timely manner”.
