It may have been a “settlement” but Prince Harry’s angry words following his deal with Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN) today showed quite how many scores he had to settle. Outside London’s High Court, the lawyer David Sherborne read a statement on behalf of the Duke of Sussex and the other remaining complainant in the case, Labour’s former deputy leader Tom Watson. They spoke of a “monumental victory”.
In many ways it was – for the first time, said the prince, there had been an admission of illegal practices by private investigators who had been employed by the Murdochs’ flagship newspaper brand, the Sun. And there was also an apology for intrusion into the life of Prince Harry and his mother, Princess Diana. But there were points NGN will take as victories too. There was no admission of illegal activity by Sun journalists. And while accepting its response to the arrest of journalists in 2006 was “regrettable” there was no admission by NGN of illegality.
And yet Prince Harry’s statement did not hold back. David Sherborne read: “After endless resistance, denials and legal battles by News Group Newspapers, including spending more than £1bn in payouts and in legal costs (as well as paying off those in the know) to prevent the full picture from coming out, News UK is finally held to account for its illegal actions and its blatant disregard for the law.”
There was more: “The truth that has now been exposed is that NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions. This happened as much at the Sun as it did at the News of the World, with the knowledge of all the editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.
“What’s even worse is that in the wake of the 2006 arrest of a royal correspondent, there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in court and at the Leveson public inquiry.”
And the allegations went right up to the present day: “As a direct result of him taking a stand, Prince Harry and his immediate family have also had to repeatedly withstand aggressive and vengeful coverage since starting his claim over five years ago. This has created serious concerns for the security of him and his family.”
It was brutal and shocking stuff from Harry which showed the depth of his sense of anger and injustice. And yet all that will become just a footnote to this epic legal battle. Because none of that will ever now be heard or tested in court. Instead Murdoch waved a settlement figure so huge that it avoided the reputational damage of the business he loves being dragged through the dirt day after day in court – and it avoided News UK’s CEO, Rebekah Brooks, and former executive turned Washington Post boss Will Lewis being questioned in court.
For many, there was no surprise that a deal was done even beyond the 12th hour. The case had been due to start on Tuesday 21 January – but as the trial judge, Timothy Fancourt, fumed at the delays, lawyers began requesting adjournments. It became clear that Prince Harry was being woken from his Californian bed to consider a last-ditch offer from Murdoch.
“There is no sum Murdoch wouldn’t pay to prevent Rebekah Brooks going into the witness box,’ speculated one insider. “She is family to him and he wouldn’t put her – or the business – through it.”
Harry always insisted his own case was not about money, but “accountability”. Perhaps with this deal and the fulsome apology, he gets both. But he doesn’t get his day in court. It may be Murdoch’s offer was so high it placed him in a game of financial Russian Roulette – even if successful. If a complainant is awarded damages less than an earlier settlement, they can be liable for both sides’ legal fees – in this case tens of millions of pounds. Hugh Grant settled his case against NGN because he feared facing up to £10m of legal fees.
Harry’s hacking claims had already been struck out by the judge for being submitted too late. Instead, he was having to prove information about him was gathered by private investigators, “blagging” calls and rummaging through bins. He also sought to show a conspiracy to destroy emails within NGN – claims that NGN refuted.
Losing the case – or winning by just a narrow margin – could have been financially disastrous for Harry. But losingcould have been far worse for NGN. Its global reputation would have been irredeemably tarnished, and it could have become a deciding factor in whether the Murdoch children offload the company’s news division once Rupert dies. Yes, their brands are damaged today by the apology and Harry’s statement. But clearly they believed the alternative, played out in a court room, was far worse. For Murdoch it draws a line beneath the dark days of the past and he must hope it enables NGN to shakily move forward.
Having paid more than £1bn in legal costs and settlements since the News of the World closed in 2011, any financial penalty was the least of NGN’s problems. This is a case that was never about money. And yet, losing would have come at an existential cost.
President Trump has long warned a day of reckoning was coming for those news providers he deems to be “enemies of the people”. His new FBI boss, Kash Patel, has pledged the agency will “come after people in the media”. Although presumably not Fox News: 19 of the corporation’s former hosts and commentators have been tapped to take up roles at the White House. Elsewhere news bosses scrambled to pay homage – and donations to the inauguration fund.
No one is sure what Trump will unleash on the US media. It could be bad: revoking broadcast licences, using labour regulations to curtail freelancers, and moving the White House press room have all been mooted. Or it could be very bad: some newsrooms are expecting federal leak investigations or litigation they cannot afford to fight. Or maybe it will just be a media running scared and self-censoring for self-preservation – which may be the worst outcome of all.
The foundation created by Bill Gates – the philanthropist committed to fighting the world’s greatest inequities, or conspirator-in-chief of the global elite, depending on your world-view – is donating $700,000 to the Independent Media Group to be spent on journalism in “under-reported” parts of the world.
With financial pressures on news firms fuelling a growing focus on content that either drives subscriptions or gets quick clicks, philanthropy can be a positive way forward. It’s certainly good news for the Independent, which became the UK’s biggest commercial news website in November.
TikTok lives to dance another day. No worries for our Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, who told Laura Kuenssberg that while TikTok was not allowed on government devices, for “consumers who want to post videos of their cats or dancing, that doesn’t seem like a security threat”. Although mass harvesting of data by a company with obligations to the Chinese state must surely be a little troubling, no? Ignorance really is bliss.
There has been one small victory against the tech titans this week as Apple withdrew an AI tool that sent incorrect news alerts to people’s phones. Initially Apple refused to suspend the service despite a barrage of complaints, but has finally caved to pressure. Tech platforms grew fat on the mantra “move fast and break things”. What they have broken, however, is public trust.
[See also: Journalism films give me the ick]
Listen to the New Statesman podcast
This article appears in the 22 Jan 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Messiah Complex