5 things you need to know as Prince Harry's court case against the Mail ends
Prince Harry appeared visibly emotional and on the verge of tears as his testimony concluded. He told the court that the publisher had made his wife, Meghan Markle's, life "an absolute misery" and described the constant legal and media battles as a "recurring traumatic experience." He emphasised that he never believed his life should be "open season to be commercialised".A major point of Harry’s testimony involved why he didn't bring these claims forward sooner. He argued that, while he was a working member of the Royal Family, "the institution" prevented him from taking legal action because of its strict policy of "never complain, never explain." He claimed it was "impossible" to push back because the newspapers would "double down" on him if he spoke out.The Duke described specific instances of alleged intrusion as "beyond cruel," particularly an article from 2006 regarding private discussions he had with Prince William following the publication of photos of a dying Diana, Princess of Wales. Harry alleged that the level of detail in such stories could only have been obtained through unlawful means, such as phone tapping or hiring private investigators to listen to private calls.The publisher (ANL) countered Harry’s claims by arguing that his social circle was "leaky" and that information was gathered through legitimate journalistic sources. In a dramatic turn, ANL’s lawyers presented alleged Facebook messages from 2011 between Harry and journalist Charlotte Griffiths, where she reportedly called him "Mr Mischief" and "H Bomb." Harry denied being close to these journalists and insisted he had never used the name "Mr Mischief."The financial stakes are massive; the trial's total legal costs are projected to reach approximately £38 million. If Harry and the other claimants (including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley) lose, they could be held liable for these enormous costs.The case has now concluded its evidentiary stage, and the parties are awaiting a final judgment from Mr Justice Nicklin.
