Prince Harry did not appear on the first day of his trial against Rupert Murdoch's tabloid, The Sun, which began on January 21, 2025.
The trial, which will feature Prince Harry’s testimony in February, involves allegations of unlawful information gathering by the newspaper, as reported by People.
The case centers on accusations that The Sun, through its publishing company, News Group Newspapers (NGN), hired journalists and private investigators to unlawfully gather private information. In response, NGN has consistently denied any wrongdoing in this matter.
Moreover, former Labour MP Tom Watson’s involvement highlights the significant public interest and complexity surrounding the case. Watson is well-known for advocating on issues of media misconduct.
Amid this high-profile legal battle, recent reports that Prince Harry would receive "limited protection" from the Metropolitan Police during the trial have been refuted. This issue has sparked contention, particularly due to Harry's ongoing security concerns.
Prince Harry has concurrently appealed a February 2020 ruling that stripped him of his automatic right to security after he stepped back from royal duties, adding layers to the controversy. The security case has been ongoing for over four years and highlights his persistent security concerns since moving to the United States.
Prince Harry notably discussed this legal stance in a statement at The New York Times's DealBook Summit on December 4, 2024. He expressed frustration with the lack of security provisions, which complicates his ability to participate in trials back in the UK.
Despite the gravity of his security situation, the Prince declined an offer to reside at Buckingham Palace during the trial, choosing instead to manage his arrangements privately.
Prince Harry’s drive to continue his lawsuit against NGN and other similar entities is fueled by a desire for accountability. “One of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability because I’m the last person that can achieve that,” Prince Harry stated during a conversation reported by The Observer on January 19, 2025. His persistence reflects a broader discontent with elements of the British tabloid industry, which he believes have invaded his privacy unlawfully.
Referring to his legal motivations, at the DealBook Summit, he remarked, "I am the last person that can achieve [accountability]." He added vehemently, "I will be damned if those journalists are going to ruin journalism for everyone because we depend on it."
Public figures like Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller have echoed this sentiment by pursuing lawsuits against Murdoch’s publications. Although many have settled, Prince Harry remains steadfast alongside Tom Watson in pursuing their claims in the courtroom.
Harry’s legal battle and his public appearances, such as the one at the United Nations Headquarters with Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, on July 18, 2022, emphasize his ongoing engagement with broad public issues despite personal legal battles.
The juxtaposition of his public duties and personal legal challenges highlights the unique position Prince Harry holds on the global stage following his departure from the Royal Family. He does not view his legal confrontations as merely personal grievances but as having significant implications for media practices internationally.
Prince Harry and his supporters see these trials as critical to reforming aspects of the media landscape, which they argue have long operated without adequate accountability. His active stance reflects a broader struggle for personal privacy and ethical journalism standards.
Hugh Grant rejected substantial monetary settlements, as he described on X (formerly Twitter), to show solidarity with Prince Harry's broader critique of the media. "As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court," Grant stated. He emphasized his desire for the allegations to be tested in court rather than settling quietly.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for NGN clarified their position on settling cases, stating, "It admitted no liability in the settlement and said that settling the case was in both parties' financial interests not to progress to a costly trial."
As the trials continue to unfold, the complexity of these legal and moral questions will capture significant attention from the public and media alike, especially as they focus on the outcomes and precedents they may establish.
