Harry’s Legal Application Rejected in Phone Hacking Trial Against Mirror Group Newspaper

In a recent development, Mr Justice Fancourt has rejected the Duke of Sussex's legal application in his phone hacking trial against Mirror Group Newspaper's MGN.

This setback comes shortly after the judge denied Harry's application for a legal challenge in his separate case against the Home Office.

David Sherborne, the lawyer representing Prince Harry and several other claimants against MGN, made an application to introduce three new witness statements as evidence on Friday morning.

However, the application was dismissed by Mr Justice Fancourt, citing its late submission and the need for further investigation by the defendant.

The trial will proceed without the inclusion of the new evidence, indicating that Harry cannot add anything to the case at this stage.

While some may argue that the entire case should be thrown out, this ruling demonstrates that the judge is diligently considering all aspects.

It raises questions about the validity of Harry's claims and weakens his position.

Apart from phone hacking allegations, what else is Harry alleging in his lawsuit?

Are there any claims related to private investigators or break-ins?

It seems unlikely that anyone could easily breach security measures and gain access to the palace.

Additionally, it is worth noting that Chelsea, who is not part of the suit, cannot be claimed against.

The witnesses who came forward during the trial, which began on May 10th, did so in response to the publisher's claims, which they believe are false.

Mr Sherborne argued that this late submission of evidence was a result of these claims.

Mr Fancourt justified his decision by stating that admitting the new evidence at this late stage would compromise the fairness of the trial as a whole.

It is important to acknowledge the expertise and reputation of Mr Sherborne, who is representing Prince Harry.

However, one must wonder if he regrets taking on this challenging case, given his difficult client's demanding and unrealistic requests.

Despite any personal embarrassment, he is obligated to present these outlandish requests in court.

The civil trial, which has just completed its third week, will reconvene in June, with Prince Harry expected to provide his testimony in the High Court.

This recent rejection of Harry's application in the Mirror trial follows the judge's denial of his legal challenge against the Home Office.

The judge ruled that Harry did not have the right to make personal representations regarding the decision to deny him funding for his police protection.

Despite offering to cover the expenses himself, the Home Office was not obligated to reconsider its decision.

In a related matter, actor Hugh Grant has also been denied the opportunity to take separate phone hacking claims against the publisher of the Sun newspaper to trial.

This decision further highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking legal recourse in cases involving phone hacking allegations.

As the legal battles continue, it remains to be seen how these setbacks will impact Prince Harry's pursuit of justice and the outcome of his lawsuits.