Prince Harry has been ordered by a High Court judge to explain the destruction of drafts of his ‘Replacement’ memoir as he sues the publisher of The Sun newspaper.
The Duke of Sussex is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) for allegedly collecting illegal information, and the hearing is expected to take place in January next year.
Part of the trial is set to investigate whether Harry knew he might have filed a lawsuit against the newspaper publisher years ago; this would preclude the offer of compensation because the statute of limitations had run out.
NGN lawyers want to see draft copies of Duke’s memoir, as well as texts between him and ghostwriter JR Moehringer, as the book was created after he filed a civil lawsuit in 2019.
But Harry’s legal team said drafts of the book had been “destroyed” and all messages have now been deleted.
But Mr Justice Fancourt ruled on Thursday that the Duke must now seek to recover the material.
“Attempts should be made to retrieve Signal messages believed to have been deleted,” he said.
“The plaintiff must provide a witness statement about how the messages were deleted and the drafts were destroyed after these proceedings began.”
The judge aimed an attack against Harry and his legal team after it was revealed that the Duke himself had carried out much of the disclosure work ahead of the civil trial in January next year.
“The bulk of the search and selection of documents to be disclosed was carried out by the Duke himself in California,” the judge said.
A lawyer has claimed Harry is “seasoned at whistleblowing” following an earlier legal battle against the Daily Mirror publisher over phone hacking.
However, the judge found that when he first became aware of a possible lawsuit against NGN, he may not have understood the type of documents that needed to be handed over.
“The issue of information is a subtle matter and a matter of broad disclosure,” he said.
“I sometimes get the impression that in this claim even the plaintiff’s lawyers do not fully grasp the issue of information, even though it is clearly stated in the defendant’s correspondence.
“It wouldn’t be surprising at all if the plaintiff himself didn’t fully understand this or struggle with it.”
The judge added: “In a case of this nature, it is, in my opinion, inappropriate to leave the document searches and assessment of relevance to the plaintiff personally.”
The judge ruled that there should be a fresh search by the Duke’s lawyers and that he should write to his former lawyers Harbottle and Lewis to request more documents for possible disclosure.
Two of King Charles’s top aides have also been drawn into the bitter legal battle.
Prince Harry was instructed by the judge to write to the King’s Private Secretary Sir Clive Alderton and the Treasurer Sir Michael Stevens requesting any documents that may be relevant.
David Sherborne, who previously represented the Duke, disputed the disclosure argument, calling it a “classic fishing exercise”.
Harry claims he was the target of illegal information collection by The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World newspaper for several years.
In preparation for next year’s trial, Harry said he searched physical documents at his California home and digital searches of his old Royal email account.
He said he confirmed that old laptops and phones, as well as a defunct Hotmail account, would not help the case.
He said he had made “extensive inquiries” with members of the Royal Household and spoken to Royal aides Lord Christopher Geidt, Sally Osman, Sir David Manning and Nick Loughran to “confirm that they do not have the relevant documents”.
Harry faced accusations of “obscuring” during the disclosure process, with NGN’s barrister Anthony Hudson KC arguing that the 11,000 documents now being reviewed should have “the plaintiff dragged out kicking and screaming”.
Hudson also argued that the apparent destruction of two hard drives that he believed contained relevant material was “shocking and extraordinary.”
Mr Sherborne pointed out that The Sun’s publisher, the now-closed News of the World, had previously been happy to appear in court in January this year without further documents being requested.
“The plaintiff opposes the disclosure application. This is a classic ‘fishing trip,’” they noted in their written submission.
He said claims that the Duke was responsible for the delays were “monstrous” and added: “It is the defendant who has failed to provide any timely explanation whatsoever.”