Prince Harry’s claims he was ‘bugged’ and ‘tracking’ devices were planted to monitor him are thrown out as judge warns Duke over use of court time

The relevant parts

The latest version of Harry’s ‘particulars of claim’, a legal document setting out details of the allegations he is making, contained only ‘generalised’ accusations about bugging, said Mr Justice Fancourt.

In a written judgment, he said: **’No particulars are provided about bugging, and a previous specific allegation in relation to Chelsy Davy’s car has been withdrawn.**

**’Permission is refused for the allegations of planting bugs in rooms and residences and bugs or tracking devices on cars, as no particulars whatsoever of such allegations have been provided.’**

The judge also refused Harry permission to include the words **’and/or the use of listening and tracking devices’** in his claim, for the reason that the duke had provided **’no particulars of these allegations’.**

It comes after Mr Justice Fancourt threw out Harry’s claims of phone hacking, last year, because the duke had waited too long before starting his legal case.

Harry had protested that a Buckingham Palace ‘secret agreement’ had prevented him from bringing his case any sooner, but the judge ruled that such a deal was ‘implausible’, and rejected Harry’s bid to use it as the reason for his late claim.

The duke, 40, who started the case in 2019, can proceed to the trial on the basis of other types of unlawful information gathering which he alleges.

Yesterday the judge described the long-running case as resembling a campaign between ‘two obdurate but well-resourced armies’ that is taking up ‘more than an appropriate’ amount of court time.

He wrote: **’I have previously indicated to the parties that this individual claim… although it raises important issues, is starting to absorb more than an appropriate share of the court’s resources, contrary to the requirement in the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.**

**’It is now doing so.**

**’The claim at times resembles more an entrenched front in a campaign between two obdurate but well-resourced armies than a claim for misuse of private information.**

**’It is unsatisfactory to say the least that the court should be faced a second time with having to resolve such a large extent of disputed material on amendments to a statement of case.’**