London, England — A British judge has called on Prince Harry to clarify issues related to potentially destroyed documents and messages linked to his 2023 memoir, “Spare.” The legal scrutiny comes amid claims that the Duke of Sussex may have deleted drafts and communications with his ghostwriter, J.R. Moehringer. These allegations surface during one of several lawsuits Harry has initiated against major U.K. newspaper publishers.
During a recent court session, Anthony Hudson, the attorney representing News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun, presented accusations suggesting that pivotal materials involving the publication process of “Spare” had been intentionally eliminated. These documents and messages, reportedly destroyed between 2021 and 2023, are critical given the ongoing lawsuit.
Presiding over the case, Justice Fancourt expressed concerns about the disappearance of these materials, remarking on the “troubling evidence” that surfaced during the proceedings. The judge found it “rather remarkable” that a considerable number of documents might have been destroyed after the legal claims were filed. This prompted him to request a detailed witness statement from Prince Harry, aimed at explaining the handling and potential retrieval attempts of these communications.
In response to these claims, David Sherborne, representing Prince Harry, denounced the publisher’s inquiry as a mere “fishing expedition”. Sherborne argued that his client had not only fulfilled but had exceeded the expectations for disclosure by conducting thorough searches of relevant materials.
This lawsuit is one of several filed by Prince Harry, who has accused various members of the press of invading his privacy consistently from 1994 up to 2016. These legal battles underscore his ongoing concerns over media practices and the personal toll they have exacted on his life.
The intense spotlight on Prince Harry is not new. The Duke of Sussex has previously testified in other high-profile court cases against publishers, including the Daily Mirror. During these hearings, Harry emphasized the longstanding adversarial relationship he has endured with the press, stemming from his childhood. He has openly spoken about the distress each press article has caused him over the years, highlighting the cumulative impact rather than any single publication.
Moreover, in March 2025, Harry accused NGN of intercepting calls made by his late mother, Princess Diana, and his father, now King Charles III. His legal team argued that such actions inevitably disclosed private information about him from as early as age nine. The amended complaint even detailed suspicions harbored by Princess Diana regarding surveillance and phone tapping, suggesting a longstanding pattern of privacy invasion by the press.
These recurring themes in Prince Harry’s legal confrontations with the press not only illuminate his personal grievances but also broader issues regarding media ethics and the privacy of public figures. As the proceedings continue, the outcomes may have significant implications for press conduct and the protection of personal privacy in the public eye. This particular case against NGN and its developments could set precedents in how media organizations handle privacy and personal data in their reporting practices.