Murdoch admits it and pays to avoid a court ruling

[JohnD]

"Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloid newspaper business has apologised and agreed to pay “substantial damages” to Prince Harry as it admitted for the first time that unlawful activities took place at The Sun.

In a landmark settlement with the Duke of Sussex, his barrister David Sherborne told the High Court in London on Wednesday that News Group Newspapers had offered a “full and unequivocal apology” for “serious intrusion” into the prince’s private life by The Sun between 1996 and 2011.

The admissions are a blow to the Murdoch empire, which has spent a decade denying any wrongdoing at The Sun even as it paid more than £1bn in costs and settlements to cover almost all of the phone-hacking claims against the wider UK news group.

But it will mean NGN will avoid having a court rule on broad allegations of phone hacking and other unlawful activity, as well as claims of a cover-up involving top executives"

FT.com
Alistair Gray and Daniel Thomas in London
an hour ago

 

[MNW67]

It would have been nice to get a court ruling.

But maybe you get penalised if you continue a case when the defendant offers to settle.

 

[JohnD]

"Rupert Murdoch told to apologise to the King"​

"Former Labour deputy leader Lord Watson, the other claimant in the case, is next to speak outside court.

He calls for NGN's owner Rupert Murdoch to make a "personal apology" to the Duke of Sussex and the King.

"If Rupert Murdoch had any decency, he should follow this corporate mission of guilt with a personal apology to Prince Harry and to his father, our King," he says. "

Sky.

"If?"

Not much chance of that.

 

[fillyboy]

It would have been nice to get a court ruling.

But maybe you get penalised if you continue a case when the defendant offers to settle.

Could have cost Harry £10 million in legal fees had he turned the settlement down.

 

[noseall]

Could have cost Harry £10 million in legal fees had he turned the settlement down.

And now he's £10 mill richer.

I suppose when you are at the helm of right wing publications and media, taking a hit for promoting dishonesty, lying and fact free reporting, is par for the course.

Poor Rupe.

 

[motorbiking]

It would have been nice to get a court ruling.

But maybe you get penalised if you continue a case when the defendant offers to settle.

For civil cases you are encouraged to settle to avoid wasting court time and of course reducing legal fees.

Generally if you push on and the court thinks the settlement offer was reasonable, you risk your costs. It’s why you make an offer.

An apology as an admission of guilt, is well tested. It’s not. So I suspect the FT narrative is a little off, but I’m not close to it.

 

[blup]

For civil cases you are encouraged to settle to avoid wasting court time and of course reducing legal fees.

Generally if you push on and the court thinks the settlement offer was reasonable, you risk your costs. It’s why you make an offer.

Good for Harry for standing up to the Murdock empire. There is something wrong with a system of justice that penalises someone seeking to clear their name but is effectively forced to settle by an over the top offer being made. The other 1000 or so claimants signed NDA's, but as Harry's brief said, they benefit from the wording of the settlement as well. I wonder if Harry got less compo because of the admissions contained in the agreed statement were worth slightly more to him than just money.

An apology as an admission of guilt, is well tested. It’s not.

The admission is surely integral to the apology, roll on the police inquiry.

So I suspect the FT narrative is a little off, but I’m not close to it.

Get closer to it you are the forums legal expert!

 

[motorbiking]

Has something been published? A statement?

Why would they settle if it paved the way for criminal prosecution?

Edit. This is what I found.

NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun," the media company said in a statement read out in court Wednesday. The statement also included an apology for the activities of journalists and private investigators working for the News of the World.

"NGN further apologizes to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologize for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages," the statement said.

No admission of criminal offences. You cannot confess on someone else’s behalf

 

[blup]

The statement is consistent with acceptance that the company and its employees, from top to bottom, undertook widespread criminal activity in relation to phone hacking. Even if its not a specific confession by an individual, the underlying evidence supports a case for criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

[noseall]

The statement is consistent with acceptance that the company and its employees, from top to bottom, undertook widespread criminal activity in relation to phone hacking. Even if its not a specific confession by an individual, the underlying evidence supports a case for criminal investigation and prosecution.

The £10 mill in Harry's hip pocket is enough for most ordinary folk. I think he and everyone watching will be satisfied that Murdoch and his lying right wing scumbags are shown to be just a bunch of lowly lying crooks. Those RWR commentators lying about the Orange Idiot have cost them dearly.
Half a billion greenbacks - ouch!

 

[blup]

The £10 mill in Harry's hip pocket is enough for most ordinary folk. I think he and everyone watching will be satisfied that Murdoch and his lying right wing scumbags are shown to be just a bunch of lowly lying crooks. Those RWR commentators lying about the Orange Idiot have cost them dearly.
Half a billion greenbacks - ouch!

Its much more than he would have got in court less the hassle and costs. But a criminal enterprise has effectively admitted the nature and extent of its activities. To show nobody is untouchable or above the law, there should be targetted criminal investigation of key individuals. Politicians, others in tne public eye, and just people whose politics they didn't like were put under surveillance by these low lifes.

 

[motorbiking]

The statement is consistent with acceptance that the company and its employees, from top to bottom, undertook widespread criminal activity in relation to phone hacking. Even if its not a specific confession by an individual, the underlying evidence supports a case for criminal investigation and prosecution.

Is that a quote or your opinion ?

 

[motorbiking]

Its much more than he would have got in court less the hassle and costs. But a criminal enterprise has effectively admitted the nature and extent of its activities. To show nobody is untouchable or above the law, there should be targetted criminal investigation of key individuals. Politicians, others in tne public eye, and just people whose politics they didn't like were put under surveillance by these low lifes.

Have you ever seen the film law abiding citizen? Remember the confession scene?

 

[blup]

Is that a quote or your opinion ?

Neither, but the acknowledgement of unlawful activity warrants a criminal investigation.

 

[blup]

Have you ever seen the film law abiding citizen? Remember the confession scene?

The newspaper wasn't a law abiding citizen, having spent billions on settlements with 13000 people involving 35,000 cases of unlawful activity, which it now effectively admits to. The statement you quoted was in response to claims of widespread and illegal hacking etc. The statement doesn't specifically admit criminal liability, and I am not suggesting that any specific individual is guilty of any specific offence, that is for the courts. But it is difficult to see how there wasn't criminal behaviour endemic in the organisation. If you admit to unlawful phone hacking as a corporation you've got to be acknowledging that individuals are also responsible, because companies are little more than bits of paper.

So no, not a narrow legal admission of guilt by specific individuals, but in the context of the statement there must surely be a full criminal investigation.