Last-minute settlement talks stall Prince Harry's high-stakes trial against British tabloids

LONDON — Prince Harry's mission to put the British tabloids on trial for decades of alleged unlawful snooping into his life was in question Tuesday as last-minute settlement talks delayed the start of a high-stakes trial pitting him against Rupert Murdoch's newspapers.

If the Duke of Sussex settles his claims against the publisher of The Sun and now-defunct News of the World, it would mark a significant reversal of his vow to be the one person who could hold them accountable and expose their misdeeds in an open trial.

Harry, 40, the younger son of King Charles III, and one other claimant are the only two remaining who have not joined the hundreds of others who have settled lawsuits against News Group Newspapers over allegations their phones were hacked and investigators unlawfully snooped on their lives.

In more than 1,300 claims brought against the publisher since a widespread phone hacking scandal forced Murdoch to close News of the World in 2011, Harry's case is the closest to get to trial.

The trial, which was due to start Tuesday morning, was delayed for a day after an unusual series of events in court that revolved around private out-of-court settlement discussions.

When Judge Timothy Fancourt refused to allow a further delay until Wednesday, attorneys on both sides said they would go to the Court of Appeal to challenge his ruling, effectively stalling the trial start.

News Group attorney Anthony Hudson said there had been productive discussions and said there was a ''very substantial sum'' on the line if the trial began before they could complete ''very intense negotiations.''

Harry has said his battle with the media has led to a rift with his family, but it's one he feels compelled to carry out to expose wrongdoing.

He won a similar case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper in 2023 and he has another case pending against the Daily Mail's publisher.

Allegations aimed at editors and executives

Harry claims News Group journalists and private investigators they hired violated his privacy by using unlawful tactics to dig up dirt on him and his family between 1996 and 2011.

His fellow claimant, Tom Watson, a former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said his voicemails were intercepted during a period when he was investigating the hacking scandal.

They allege that executives concealed the skullduggery through means that included destroying documents.

''This allegation is wrong, unsustainable, and is strongly denied,'' News Group said in a statement.

Former executives accused of playing a role include Will Lewis, now CEO of the Washington Post, and Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK, a division of News Corp. They have denied wrongdoing.

Brooks was acquitted of phone hacking conspiracy charges in a criminal trial in 2014, though her former colleague, Andy Coulson, who was later spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron, was jailed.

News Group strongly denies the allegations and it said Harry failed to bring his lawsuit within the required six-year limit.

Litigation, a source of family friction

The trial, expected to last 10 weeks, would put Harry back in the witness box for several days in February.

In 2023, Harry became the first senior member of the royal family to testify in court since the late 19th century, when Queen Victoria's eldest son, Prince Albert Edward, testified twice.

That has put Harry at odds with a family famous for a ''never complain, never explain'' attitude.

Harry revealed in court papers that his father opposed his litigation. He also said his older brother William, Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, had received a ''huge sum'' to settle a complaint against News Group.

''The mission continues, but it has, yes, it's caused, as you say, part of a rift,'' Harry said in the documentary ''Tabloids On Trial.''

Harry said he wished his family had joined him in making a stand against media offenses.

''But, you know, I'm doing this for my reasons,'' he said.

Strong incentive to settle

Actor Hugh Grant had been one of Harry's remaining co-claimants, but said he was forced to accept ''an enormous sum of money'' to settle because he could have faced a legal bill of 10 million pounds ($12.3 million) even if he won at trial.

Despite the grave financial risk, Harry told The New York Times Dealbook Summit in December that he was not going to fold.

''They've settled because they've had to settle," he said of other claimants. "One of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability, because I'm the last person that can actually achieve that.''

Unexpected delay at the 11th-hour

The trial's delay was unremarkable, but the sequence of events leading to it was unusual.

After an adjournment through the lunch hour expired, attorneys donned their wigs again and sought another postponement as they verbally danced around the settlement that was on everyone's mind.

''I am not persuaded that if there is a real will to settle this, first that it could not have been achieved by today,'' Fancourt said. ''These parties have had a very long time to come to terms in this matter.''

After reluctantly granting a 10-minute break ostensibly to give Harry's lawyer David Sherborne time to remove anything provocative from his opening statement that could affect the ongoing talks, the parties returned to court and said they would appeal.

Fancourt, who was not happy, said they had ultimately achieved the delay they sought by deciding to go to a higher court.