Prince Harry ordered by judge to explain deleted 'Spare' drafts in High Court battle with The Sun

Prince Harry has been ordered by a High Court judge to explain the destruction of drafts of his memoir ‘Spare’ when he was suing the publisher of The Sun newspaper.

The Duke of Sussex is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) over alleged unlawful information gathering, with a blockbuster trial set for January next year.

Part of the case is set to explore whether Harry knew he might have a caseagainst the newspaper publisher many years ago, which would thwart his bid for damages as being out of time.

Lawyers for NGN want to see draft copies of the Duke’s memoir, as well as texts between him and ghostwriter JR Moehringer as the book was created after he brought the civil claim in 2019.

But Harry’s legal team said drafts of the book have been “destroyed” and all of the messages have now been deleted.

But Mr Justice Fancourt ruled on Thursday that the Duke must now try to recover that material.

“Attempts should be made to retrieve the Signal messages believed to have been deleted,” he said.

“The claimant must make a witness statement on how deletion of the messages and destruction of the drafts took place, after the commencement of these proceedings.”

The judge aimed a broadside at Harry and his legal team after it emerged the Duke himself has been conducting large parts of the disclosure exercise ahead of the civil trial in January next year.

“The majority of the searching for, and selection of, documents to disclose has been dealt with by the Duke himself in California,” said the judge.

A solicitor suggested Harry is an “old hand at dealing with disclosure”, after a previous legal battle against the publisher of the Daily Mirror over phone hacking.

But the judge found that he may not understand the kind of documents that have to be handed over relating the first time he became aware of a possible case against NGN.

“The knowledge issue is a subtle one and it’s a broad disclosure issue,” he said.

“Sometimes I have the impression in this claim that even the claimant’s lawyers don’t seem to fully grapple with the knowledge issue, despite it having been spelled out in the defendant’s correspondence.

“It would be not at all surprising if the claimant himself didn’t fully understand or grapple with it.”

The judge added: “It is not appropriate in my judgement, in a case of this nature, for searches of documentation and assessment of relevance to be left to the claimant personally.”

The judge ruled that renewed searches should be carried out by the Duke’s lawyers, and he should write to his former lawyers at Harbottle and Lewis to request further documents for possible disclosure.

Two of King Charles’ top aides have also been drawn into the bitter legal battle.

Prince Harry has been instructed by the judge to write to Sir Clive Alderton, the King’s Private Secretary, and Royal treasurer Sir Michael Stevens to request documents which may be relevant.

Earlier, David Sherborne, representing the Duke, resisted the disclosure argument, calling it a “classic fishing exercise”.

Harry claims he was the target of unlawful information gathering for several years by The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World newspaper.

In preparation for next year’s trial, Harry says he has already scoured his home in California for physical documents and carried out a digital search of his former Royal email account.

He says he has confirmed that old laptops and phones, as well as a defunct Hotmail account, would not assist the case.

He said he has made “extensive enquiries” with members of the Royal Household, and has spoken to Royal aides Lord Christopher Geidt, Sally Osman, Sir David Manningand Nick Loughran to “confirm they do not hold relevant documents”.

Harry faced accusations of “obfuscation” in the disclosure process, and it was suggested by NGN’s barrister Anthony Hudson KC that 11,000 documents that are currently under review have had to be “dragged out of the claimant kicking and screaming”.

Mr Hudson also suggested it is “shocking and extraordinary” that two hard-drives which it believed contained relevant material have apparently been destroyed.

Mr Sherborne pointed out the newspaper publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World had previously been happy to go to trial in January this year, without requests for further documents.

“The Claimant opposes the disclosure application. It is a classic ‘fishing expedition’,” he set out in written submissions.

He said suggestions that the Duke had been responsible for delays were “monstrous”, adding: “It is the defendant that has failed to pursue disclosure in any form in a timely fashion”.