The importance of an apology: (1) Duke of Sussex; and (2) Lord Watson -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd

On the morning of the much-awaited trial at the High Court between Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, Lord Watson and News Group Newspapers Ltd (NGN), the owner of The Sun and the now defunct News of the World, it was announced that the trial had been vacated as a settlement had been reached.

The claim attracted significant media attention and public interest as it concerned alleged unlawful information gathering by NGN through phone hacking and other illicit means. The Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson alleged that the information gathered as a result of the unlawful acts of NGN’s journalists and private investigators had been used to produce over 200 articles about their private life.

The Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson are not the only celebrities to have alleged such acts against NGN; other high-profile celebrities such as actor Hugh Grant, made similar allegations but said he felt pressured to settle his claim due to the mounting legal costs he could be required to pay if his claim was not successful. It is reported that NGN has spent over £1 billion in settlements and legal costs against 1,300 other claimants. Until now, NGN has never admitted any liability on behalf of The Sun and the News of the World.

The Settlement

Although the full details of the settlement are yet to be disclosed, NGN has published a “full and unequivocal” apology to both the Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson, in which it admits to unlawful activities being carried out by private investigators working for The Sun and the News of the World, including phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of their private information. NGN’s apology also extended in part to the Duke of Sussex’s late mother, Princess Diana. This is of particular note, as the Court previously refused to allow the Duke of Sussex to extend the claim period to include allegations involving Princess Diana. Alongside the apology to the Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson, NGN has agreed to pay them “substantial damages”, and it is thought that it will also pay a large contribution to their legal costs.

This litigation has continued for over a decade. During this time, it became clear that the Duke of Sussex was not looking for monetary compensation for any unlawful interference by NGN or its newspapers. Instead, the Duke of Sussex’s main goal was to make NGN accountable for The Sun’s illegal actions, not just for himself but for the numerous other alleged victims who felt that they had no choice but to settle.

Although the Duke of Sussex will almost certainly feel vindicated as a result of NGN’s public apology, NGN did not admit everything that the Duke of Sussex was looking to prove. NGN’s apology was selective, only admitting liability on the part of The Sun’s private investigators rather than its journalists (in contrast to what was admitted on the part of the defunct News of the World), and outright denying claims that the most senior members of The Sun covered-up the unlawful interference (including through the destruction of evidence). So in some ways, a settlement including a public apology was to the advantage of both parties.

Public apologies as a remedy

It seems that the public apology was central to the Duke of Sussex agreeing to the settlement of this litigation. In many cases, especially high profile cases or those involving damage to reputation, a claimant usually wants the wrongdoer to ‘put things right’ and ‘set the record straight’ by providing a formal statement admitting their acts and apologising.

A monetary award, which is the typical remedy in most claims, simply does not suffice in these types of defamation and privacy claims. Unlike most other claims, in addition to damages, it is usual for a claimant to ask for an apology, and it is common for the defendant to agree to publish an apology as part of a settlement.

If no apology is agreed by the defendant it is usually because they are nervous to do so (somewhat understandably), on the basis that liability will be taken to be admitted and the consequences that will possibly flow from making an apology. In these circumstances, a Court cannot usually force a defendant to apologise, but if successful at trial, vindication is achieved through a public judgment and the award of damages.

If you or your business have been the subject of serious harm and damage to your reputation, contact our team of dedicated experts at Thomson Snell & Passmore who can advise you on your options and the best course of action moving forward.