Phone hacking: victory for Prince Harry?

The worst thing about the phone hacking scandal is, of course, the misery it caused to those whose privacy was invaded, said The Independent. But the damage spread further than that: it tarnished the reputation of all journalists, and by further eroding trust in the media, it undermined a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

So even those who do not share all of Prince Harry's views about the press should commend him for his long campaign to bring to account those responsible for tabloid phone hacking, surveillance and other nefarious practices – and welcome the victory he scored last week, when Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers (NGN) finally admitted that "unlawful activities" had taken place at The Sun. As part of a last-minute settlement, Harry also won "substantial damages" and an apology for the "serious intrusion" into his private life, and that of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, by The Sun and the defunct News of the World.

It is a vindication of sorts, but this is not the result Harry hoped for, said Victoria Ward in The Daily Telegraph. Only six weeks ago, he said he'd not settle because his goal was full accountability, to bring "closure" for all the victims who'd had to settle. Yet last week, he and former Labour MP Tom Watson – the last two claimants – capitulated, in return for a limited acceptance of liability: NGN admitted that investigators hired by The Sun had acted unlawfully, but denied wrongdoing by its own journalists at the paper.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Harry had been made an offer he could not refuse, said Jane Martinson in The Guardian. Had he rejected the settlement – believed to be £10 million – then been awarded a penny less in court, he'd have been liable for both sides' costs, which exceed £30 million. This rule is designed to stop litigants from clogging up the system, but the powerful can use it to avoid public scrutiny, said Robert Shrimsley in the FT. NGN had already paid out an estimated $1 billion to settle more than 1,300 cases, and spare its executives from having to testify about the scandal and their efforts to contain it. A further £10 million must have seemed small beer to bring the saga to an end.

The only hope left now for transparency is if the police decide to reopen their investigation. Until then, there is no real victory: the Murdochs and their top executives – including former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks – "remain unbowed; fêted and fawned upon". Like the Buchanans in "The Great Gatsby", the business has "been able to wreck lives then retreat into their money". The "warrior prince won more than most", but "even he could not meet the full price of justice".