Prince Harry court case: Questions as Duke of Sussex gives evidence

As day one of Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex giving evidence in court in London closed out, there was a clear winner. Kaya Mar.

After Harry, freshly recovered no doubt from whatever had kept him away from proceedings on Monday to the reported displeasure of the judge, entered the High Court, Mr Mar, a cartoonist, cunningly capitalised on having an enormous press pack, live TV cameras and even a helicopter hovering overhead.

Bearing a large piece featuring Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex in a wedding dress on a donkey and the duke in a loincloth and holding a spear, he paraded in front of the world’s cameras, showing off his work. Genius marketing move.

However, inside the court, things were no laughing matter, with Harry coming face-to-face with what sounds like a decidedly painful first – someone actually pushing back against his sweeping claims.

Entering the court on Tuesday, Harry was making history as the first senior member of the royal family to sit in the witness box since the future Edward VII was called to give evidence in a slander case involving a couple of aristos and an illegal baccarat game.

At the centre of Harry’s case are much more serious claims, specifically that the Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) published 147 stories between 1996 and 2010 that included information allegedly gained unlawfully. Of those pieces, 33 have been chosen to be considered in this case.

Even though Harry has been sharing his truth via interviews, podcasts and on telly for years now, he has only ever been gently prodded and encouraged by obsequious, nodding star interviewers. When it came to interlocutors such as Oprah Winfrey or Anderson Cooper, with the exchanges having to be neatly condensed and edited to only run so long, there was little room – if interest – in anything like a bit of journalistic pushback.

Not this time.

Instead, Harry has faced off against a barrister who has previously been called a “beast in the courtroom”, leaving him “appearing [to be] out of his depth”.

However, the British legal system does not allow second takes and requires claims to be backed up by more than an occasional jutting lip or a heartstring-tugging reference to the tragedy of Diana, Princess of Wales.

As Harry has now discovered, there is a world of difference between making claims to friendly journalists from the safety of a California patio and being quizzed in court by Andrew Green KC, a highly experienced barrister.

With Harry sworn in and sitting in the witness box, Mr Green reportedly proceeded to begin to walk him through the 33 stories at the heart of this case, spending an hour on the first one alone.

We’re a long way from Oprah, Toto.

Harry, according to the Times, “struggled to justify his phone-hacking claims” and was also “forced to admit repeatedly” that some of the 33 articles had “actually emerged from official palace statements, interviews with him or his mother, or previous media reports”.

Take one of the stories in question titled “Diana so sad on Harry’s big day” and dating back to 1996, which referenced a trip the princess had taken.

Mr Green pointed out that Diana’s trip had actually been reported by the Press Association (PA) before the Mirror ran the story and that her communications secretary had confirmed the details of her trip to PA.

Also, Harry didn’t get a mobile phone of his own until 1998. Whoops.

When the duke suggested it might have been Diana’s phone that was hacked, Mr Green responded, “That’s just speculation you’ve come up with now”.

Or take a story from 2000 about Harry going rock climbing rather than going to a gala for the late Queen Mother.

Mr Green cited a Daily Mail story published two days prior to the MGN piece about the same trip which included Buckingham Palace confirming Harry and brother Prince William would not be attending the black tie do.

When Mr Green then asked Harry whose mobile he believed might have been hacked, he said, “I believe it could have been anyone from myself to my brother to Paddy Haverson”.

However, Mr Haverson, who would become the then-Prince of Wales’ communications secretary, only started working for Charles four years later in 2004. Oopsie.

Then there was a 2003 story about Harry leading cadets at an Eton parade.

Mr Green said the story had actually come from a royal press release and included quotes from a spokesperson for the exclusive boys’ school.

He also questioned Harry over, as the Times reported, “which articles caused him distress at the time of publication”, with Harry only having been 12 years old when that first story was published.

“If you don’t have a recollection of reading the article at the time, how do you say it has caused you distress?” he asked.

Then came the biggie, with Harry having to admit that a claim made in the case didn’t line up with what he had written in his tell-all Spare.

And so on it went.

What was really going on in court 15 was that really, for the first time since Megxit, Harry was forced to back up his declarations, and with the person questioning him not giving a fig about ratings or sound bites.

As Mr Green probed and questioned, the duke “appeared out of his depth”, according to the Telegraph’s Victoria Ward, who was in the court.

“Harry was softly spoken – at one point he was asked to speak up – and answered the questions curtly,” Ms Ward reported.

“Having covered the royal family on and off for many years, it was clear to me that he was uncomfortable. There were few if any of the easy smiles that come so readily when he is doing something he loves.

“I’m not sure he even realised he was being set up to skewer himself or that, to the onlookers in court, it did not appear to be going well.”

At other times, Harry proved he clearly has a knack for theatrical rhetoric, such as launching an unprecedented attack on the British government and declaring it was at “rock bottom”.

But while self-righteous posturing might make cracking TV, it doesn’t necessarily win court cases.

Whatever the outcome of the case, Harry looks to be burning through what public goodwill he might have left in the UK and demonstrating that he remains obtuse and lacking any sense of irony.

Take the title situation.

Via Netflix and Spare, Harry has earnt tens of millions of dollars by repeatedly and fervently pointing out the failings of the royal family – and yet his barrister David Sherborne said that the “protocol” was for him to be first addressed as “Your Royal Highness” after which it was his “personal preference” to be referred to as Prince Harry.

Righto then. So much for his line in February 2020 when he told conference delegates in Scotland “just to call him Harry”. Living in the land of the free and what is meant to be the ultimate meritocracy would not seem to have dulled his desire to identify as royal.

Or take that “rock bottom” line. Harry has spent approximately one month out of the last 41 months in his homeland, so how the dickens is he in any sort of position to offer such a grave diagnosis?

Also, labelling the country where you were born as the national equivalent of Britney Spears circa 2007 is hardly a way to charm the public.

With Harry now holding not only the media and the Firm but also Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government with disdain, what British institution will he go after next? Coronation Street? Hobnobs? Warm beer?

At the close of the day, having spent nearly five hours on the stand, Harry exited the court, destination unknown.

Having been forced by King Charles to give back the keys to the Sussexes’ former Windsor home Frogmore Cottage recently, the duke will have had to find his own accommodation.

Tomorrow the duke will be back in court for another gladiatorial round, with the case expected to last for several more weeks yet.

Harry seems to have so clearly wanted his day in court, but after this outing, it sounds like he should be a bit more careful what he wishes for. Maybe just a pony next time?

Daniela Elser is writer, editor and royal commentator working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.