The Mail ‘successfully invoked the Human Rights Act,’ which they don’t support

Here are some photos of Prince Harry leaving the High Court in London on Monday. He looked so good – he is healthy and clear-eyed and well-dressed. He has a big stride and a cheeky smile. Bless him. Harry stayed for the whole hearing, and clearly, there was some coordination with his co-plaintiffs. Elton John, Sadie Frost and Doreen Lawrence all attended the hearing even though none of them were testifying. This was a message. It also enabled the international and domestic (British) media to write about exactly why Harry and the others are suing the Mail and what’s happening in the case. The Mail wanted this hearing buried and even now, they’re underreporting what happened and who was there. But other British outlets are… actually doing some straight reporting, without editorializing, without making everything about Harry and his f–ked up family. The Guardian had an interesting piece about the Mail trying to hide the names of the “journalists” involved in the case:

The Daily Mail’s parent company has successfully invoked the Human Rights Act to stop other media outlets naming its journalists in a phone hacking court case. Lawyers working for the Daily Mail said publishing the names would breach the journalists’ right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act. This is despite the Mail long using its editorial pages to campaign against the European-derived legislation.

Barrister David Sherborne, representing Harry and other claimants at the high court, noted it was surprising to see a newspaper that has campaigned for press freedom object to the publication of the names: “They say different rules apply to their journalists suspected of wrongdoing, as opposed to others suspected of wrongdoing.”

Catrin Evans KC, acting for Associated Newspapers, successfully argued there was no justification for publication of the journalists’ names at this stage. She told the court that publication of the names could cause “immense reputational damage” to the 73 individuals who worked for the Mail and invade their privacy.

The company did confirm that the former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and former the Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright are named in the allegations. The allegations of illegal behaviour are strongly denied by the Mail’s parent company and it is not clear in what capacity the 73 individuals are named. The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, agreed and temporarily blocked identification of the Mail journalists pending his interim judgment, partly because the individuals have not had the opportunity to offer up a defence.

He told the court: “Although I do recognise I am preventing the reporting of the journalists’ names at this stage, this is in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice.”

[From The Guardian]

When I first glanced through this article, I thought “wow, the fix is in, wonder how much the judge got paid.” But reading the whole thing in context, I sort of understand why the judge is blocking the names for now, when they’re still in pre-trial motions. It will likely (and hopefully) be much different if and when they go to trial. Still, the hypocrisy is always notable – as you can see, the Mail actively campaigned against the Human Rights Act which they are now using as a shield to protect their blagging, hacking journalists. I’m also reminded of the Mail’s attempts to publish the names of Meghan’s friends who spoke to People Magazine in early 2019, as part of Meghan’s lawsuit against the Mail.

— R.S. Locke / Royal Suitor (@royal_suitor) March 27, 2023

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Source: Read Full Article