Harry’s claim about secret deal with Buckingham Palace is ‘Alice in Wonderland stuff,’ Supreme Court hears

The Duke of Sussex had “no evidence whatsoever” to support his story of a clandestine agreement – supposedly made with the late Queen’s approval – to prevent him from launching a hacking case against The Sun’s publisher, it was said.

Harry’s case was so contradictory, the newspaper’s lawyer told the court, that he tried to “ride two horses galloping in completely opposite directions.”

The Duke began his hacking case against The Sun’s publisher, News Group Newspapers (NGN), in 2019.

Earlier this year, the publisher, which denies the allegations, argued that the case should be dismissed because the duke waited too long to start legal proceedings.

People have six years after becoming aware of possible illegality to bring a civil claim.

In response, Harry said the reason he had not filed his claim sooner was a “secret agreement” made by palace employees and newspaper executives.

He said he found out about the alleged deal in 2012, which was that the royals would wait for other phone hacking cases to be resolved and then the royals’ claims would be quietly “admitted or dealt with with an apology” without public fanfare .

Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne has said the late Queen was involved in “discussions and approval” of the secret agreement, and that it meant Harry “couldn’t make a claim against NGN for phone hacking at the time.”

Today’s hearing was designed to decide whether or not the duke can rely on his ‘secret agreement’ claims.

Anthony Hudson KC, on behalf of the publisher, said the paper’s position was that no such secret agreement had ever been made.

He told the court that he thought it was ‘such a secret agreement’ [Harry]that no one but he knows anything about it, and even he knows little about it.”

The lawyer said it was bizarre and inexplicable that Harry had no evidence as to when the alleged agreement was made, or “who in the palace – or “the institution” as he describes it – was involved in making this very important agreement.” .

The prince was “hedging his bets” by being vague, Mr Hudson added.

He said that of the people who could be expected to be “involved in or aware of such a profound agreement, none of them have heard of it.”

In the past 11 years, Harry hadn’t even turned up to ask the palace or his former lawyers about the deal, “and that’s staggering,” Hudson said.

He said: ‘He’s had years and months to collect evidence, and he hasn’t done that at all. There’s no evidence whatsoever.’

The KC said Harry’s lawyers had criticized newspaper executives who didn’t even work there in 2012, telling the court, “This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.”

Divid Sherborne (pictured) cited how in 2020 Prince William quietly settled his own phone hacking claim, which had not been published before, against the publisher ‘for a huge sum of money’

He said it was abundantly clear that the duke’s claims of a secret agreement were “really a construct by his lawyers” who had devised it as a “backup plan” when they “realized they might be in trouble” with the case.

After the allegation about the secret agreement was first made, in Harry’s written evidence for the Supreme Court hearing in April, the judge said he was “unsettled.”

Mr Justice Fancourt wondered how Harry could simultaneously state that he had no knowledge to make a claim before 2019, but also that he was unable to make a claim in 2012. Harry’s case.

Judge Fancourt adjourned the hearing from April to today to decide whether the “secret agreement” claim can be included in Harry’s argument. He heard legal arguments from both sides today and will make a ruling at a later date.

Mr Sherborne told the judge Harry had not been able to make his claim sooner because he had been kept ‘out of the loop’ by Buckingham Palace over the agreement in 2012, and only in 2019 had he ignored ‘enough’ of his complaints and filed his legal claim.

Mr Sherborne cited how in 2020 Prince William quietly settled his own phone hacking claim, which had not been published before, against the publisher ‘for a huge sum of money’.

And he said correspondence in 2017 and 2018 between the late Queen’s then director of communications, Sally Osman, and news executives Robert Thomson and Rebekah Brooks showed it was “obvious” that the agreement existed.

The lawyer said the matter was “crying” to be resolved at trial. If the judge agrees with him, the trial will take place in January 2024.