The long-awaited High Court trial involving the Duke of Sussex and the publisher of The Sun has been delayed, as speculation mounts over potential settlement negotiations between the two parties. The trial, initially scheduled to begin on Tuesday, has been postponed amid talks, leaving the case unresolved for the time being.
Prince Harry, along with former Labour deputy leader Lord Tom Watson, is pursuing legal action against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun. The case centres around allegations of unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators employed by the newspaper between 1996 and 2011. This legal battle adds to the ongoing scrutiny over the practices of UK tabloids, particularly those linked to phone hacking and other forms of journalistic malpractice.
NGN, which also previously ran the now-defunct News of the World, strongly denies any unlawful activity took place at The Sun during this period. The publisher has maintained that it acted within the law, and it is fighting the allegations vigorously.
While the case was due to begin on Tuesday, delays have meant that the trial has yet to get underway. The postponement has raised questions about the potential for a settlement between Prince Harry, Lord Watson, and NGN. After two previous requests for adjournments, which were believed to be linked to settlement talks, Mr Justice Fancourt denied a third request for a delay, stating that both sides had been given ample time to resolve their differences.
In the wake of the judge’s decision, both legal teams sought permission to challenge the ruling. Lawyers representing NGN argued that the negotiations had been “intense” in the days leading up to the trial, with “time difference difficulties” contributing to the delays. Anthony Hudson KC, who is representing NGN, told the court that the parties were “very close” to reaching an agreement, and that such cooperation between the two sides was a rare development in the case.
Mr Hudson added, “Very unusually, both parties are in complete agreement that this is a very important step.” His remarks suggested that both Prince Harry and Lord Watson were willing to settle, provided they could come to an acceptable resolution with the publisher.
Despite the ongoing negotiations, Mr Justice Fancourt was firm in his stance, refusing to grant a further delay. However, the judge noted that if either party wished to challenge his decision, they could seek approval from appeal judges. He stated, “I will not stand in the way of access to justice,” emphasising that the parties still had options if they wished to pursue an appeal. The judge’s comments reflected the seriousness with which the case is being treated, and the urgency to move forward in resolving the matter.
More Read
The case revolves around the allegations of unlawful information gathering, which includes phone tapping and the use of private investigators to access personal information. These accusations are part of a broader investigation into the practices of the British press, particularly during the period when The Sun and News of the World were at the height of their influence. The Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson have been outspoken about their grievances with the tabloid press, which they accuse of violating their privacy and engaging in unlawful activities.
While the trial’s delay may suggest the possibility of a settlement, it also highlights the ongoing tension between high-profile figures like Prince Harry and the media, which has been a recurring theme in the Duke’s public life. Prince Harry has previously been vocal about his efforts to challenge the media’s behaviour, particularly in the context of his family’s treatment by the press.
As the legal case progresses, all eyes will be on whether the parties can resolve their differences outside the courtroom, or if the trial will ultimately proceed. With both sides seemingly at an impasse for now, the outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain. However, with the trial still in its early stages, the case is likely to remain in the public eye, further raising questions about the relationship between the press, the law, and privacy rights.
