Two former justice secretaries have criticised Prince Harry for attacking the judge who presided over his hacking case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Mr Justice Nicklin threw out the claim brought by the Duke of Sussex and other celebrities against Associated Newspapers last week, dismissing all 97 claims of unlawful information gathering in full.
The claimants, who also included Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence, will have to foot a bill of up to £50m for the Mail’s legal costs.
After the judgment was handed down last Tuesday, the Duke called it a “complete and obvious whitewash”.
He said: “This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (who were represented by, at the time, the judge who made this decision).”
The statement went on: “It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”
The comments have been criticised by Alex Chalk KC, who served under Rishi Sunak, and Sir Robert Buckland KC, who served under Boris Johnson.
Mr Chalk said: “Expressing disagreement with a judgment is perfectly reasonable. But Harry’s attack on a High Court judge was over the top, personal and unacceptable.
“Judges act in the name of the King and swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. That’s how our constitution works, as Harry should know better than most. However disappointed he was with the result, insulting one of HM’s judges is a line he shouldn’t have crossed.”
Sir Robert said: “The tone and content of the attack was not appropriate.”
He said that the Duke could instead have issued a statement saying: “The Prince is deeply disappointed by the court’s decision and will be taking advice as to his options in light of this. He will make no further comment.”
Sir Robert also pointed out that Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, the Lady Chief Justice, had recently expressed concern over the safety of sitting judges.
She said: “At a time when the judiciary is facing increasing threats to their security, it is important that major figures in public life and members of the Royal family exercise restraint.”
Lord Garnier KC, a former Conservative solicitor-general, said: “The judge was there all day, every day, and concentrated throughout the process on doing justice between the parties.”
Lord Garnier added that Mr Justice Nicklin’s judgment contained “several hundred pages and about 2,000 paragraphs of analysis, findings of fact, recitations of uncontested facts and conclusions that flow from those facts”.
He added: “It seems to me that the claimants embarked for whatever reason on a hugely risky venture and it did not succeed.
“In losing it, [they] may well have burnished the reputation of an institution, the British media, whose conduct over the last several decades has not always been above reproach.
“Sometimes ignoring the hurt brings quicker and longer lasting peace of mind than long, protracted legal crusades.”
Posted by ButIDigress79
2 Comments
He has a valid point. If the judge formerly represented TDM then they absolutely should have recused themselves.
I don’t know the justice is question, but if there were a case to request recusal, the legal team should have presented it beforehand. Harry complaining after the fact just comes off as whingeing.