Harry ‘dragged kicking and screaming’ into Sun publisher’s search for evidence

The Duke of Sussex had to be dragged “kicking and screaming” by lawyers for the publisher of The Sun into allowing his personal emails to be examined for potential evidence in their ongoing legal battle, the High Court was told.

Harry was accused of “obfuscation” and creating an “obstacle course” by News Group Newspapers (NGN) during its efforts to find relevant material for the litigation over the duke’s allegations of unlawful information gathering.

At a one-day hearing on Thursday, the publisher’s lawyer said they were “extremely concerned” about the deletion of exchanges via the Signal messaging service between Harry and John Moehringer, the ghostwriter of the royal’s memoir Spare.

The duke’s legal team told a judge that NGN had wrongly characterised his approach to disclosing material, accusing the publisher of embarking on a “classic fishing expedition” for potential information that was “entirely unnecessary and disproportionate”.

Harry, 39, alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for NGN, which also published the now-defunct News Of The World.

He is among a number of people to bring cases against the publisher, with a full trial of some cases due to be held in January.

The publisher has previously denied unlawful activity took place at The Sun.

At the hearing in London, NGN’s lawyers asked judge Mr Justice Fancourt to order Harry’s current solicitors to carry out searches of Harry’s texts, Whatsapp and Signal messages, laptop and hard drives.

The publisher also wants Harry’s lawyers to write to his former solicitors at law firm Harbottle & Lewis and members of the “royal household” – Sir Clive Alderton, private secretary to the King and Sir Michael Stevens, the keeper of the privy purse – to request communication records concerning the duke.

NGN wants Harry to disclose information that could relate to when he knew he could bring a potential case against the publisher and whether the filing of his claim in September 2019 was made within a legal time limit, the court was told.

Mr Justice Fancourt heard that some 11,570 emails from the duke’s now-closed ha@sjpkp.com email account were being reviewed for potential disclosure by his lawyers.

Anthony Hudson KC, representing NGN, said: “We’ve had to drag those out of the claimant kicking and screaming.”

The barrister said the disclosure process was “incredibly simple but for the obstacle course created by the claimant”.

“He doesn’t want to have to do this for whatever reason,” Mr Hudson added.

In written arguments, he said Harry’s Signal conversations with Mr Moehringer had been “wiped” before the publication of Spare, adding: “It therefore appears that a substantial source of relevant documents in the claimant’s control has been deleted during the currency of these proceedings.”

He also said: “It appears that all documents relating to the writing of Spare were destroyed before publication and after the commencement of these proceedings, a matter which gives rise to real concern as to whether the claimant has complied with his obligation to preserve potentially relevant documents”.

David Sherborne, for Harry, said he opposed the publisher’s disclosure bid, adding that he had been “monstrously” characterised by NGN to give an impression that was “quite wrong”.

He said NGN had previously deleted “millions of emails” as a way of “hiding incriminating evidence”.

Mr Sherborne said it was the “height of hypocrisy to suggest that obstacles are being put in the way by the claimant who obviously has something to hide”.

He said Harry was voluntarily allowing a search of his emails that had taken 150 hours and cost £50,000.

The barrister told the court that NGN had “failed to pursue disclosure in any form of timely fashion”.

In written arguments, Mr Sherborne said Harry had already searched his Californian home for material, that he no longer had laptops, mobile phones or data backups from before September 2013.

Harry’s Hotmail email address used before 2014 had been deactivated, he said, while there were “no relevant social media accounts that fall to be searched”.

Royal aides had also been contacted and “have confirmed they do not hold relevant documents”, Mr Sherborne added.

Mr Justice Fancourt is due to give a ruling on Thursday afternoon.