PRINCE Harry was licking his wounds earlier today after a High Court judge highlighted his testimony’s “lack of credibility”.

The royal’s reputation hit an all-time low as Mr Justice Fancourt blasted his “inconsistent factual case” and threw out his phone-hacking claim against The Sun.

4

As the humiliating judgement was published to the National Archives, sources said “all is not well” in US-based Harry’s life after a lucrative deal collapsed.

The Duke of Sussex, 38, and wife Meghan, 41, were branded “f*****g grifters” by a Spotify executive last month as the company ditched their £15million podcast deal after one series.

And the couple, who live in California with their two kids, have been dogged by claims on US gossip sites of marriage problems — which were denied by their reps.

Last night, a source said: “There is a bit of a feeling Harry is spiralling out of control and all is not well.

“Members of his family are worried about how he is coping and his determination to keep having legal battles.”

The 40-page Approved Judgement by High Court Judge, Mr Timothy Fancourt — handed down at 10am on Thursday — has plunged the prince into a crisis.

The damning ruling, the first time the evidence of a royal has been questioned so thoroughly, concluded Harry’s case had “not reached the necessary threshold of plausibility and cogency”.

It adds the “lack of credibility arises from: the unexplained lateness of the plea . . . the improbability of a secret agreement being made in the terms pleaded . . . the absence of any explanation for the new factual case being raised; and absence of any other witness or documentary evidence to support it.”

Delivered at the imposing High Court building, bearing the Royal Coat of Arms, the judgement added Prince Harry had signed two “statements of truth” that were “inconsistent” with his evidence.

The Duke is suing Sun publisher News Group Newspapers, alleging phone-hacking and other unlawful activities — which are denied.

His claim of a “secret agreement” between Buckingham Palace and newspaper execs was central to his legal argument.

In his testimony, Harry — represented by A-list barrister David Sherborne — argued the deal meant he was blocked by royal courtiers in 2012 from launching a claim against NGN.

4

Harry, involved in six High Court legal battles in recent months, had used the “secret agreement” claim to explain why he had not brought his case sooner.

He launched his claim against the now-closed News of the World and The Sun in 2019 claiming hacking between 1996 and 2011.

By law, claimants have six years to start legal action after they allege activity took place.

The judge said the time had “therefore expired” when Harry started his claim in 2019.

The Prince had tried to amend his case at a late stage to insert the “secret agreement” detail – described by The Sun’s KC Anthony Hudson as “Alice in Wonderland stuff” at an earlier hearing.

And Mr Justice Fancourt questioned how Harry could claim he did not know about hacking, while also insisting he had been blocked from taking action by the supposed backroom deal.

He also wrote: “The Duke is unable to say who on each side made the secret agreement, or even who told him about it: it might have been Gerrard Tyrell (a lawyer representing the royals) or it might have been another representative of the Royal Family.

“The evidence in support of the pleaded case is limited to that of the Duke. It is not strong evidence.

“One might have expected to see some evidence from Mr Tyrrell giving support to the Duke’s factual case, but there is none.”

NGN has hailed the ruling as a “significant victory”.

But although phone hacking claims were dismissed, the judge granted Harry the right to sue NGN over alleged illegal story-gathering with a trial set to take place in January.

NGN denies any illegal activity at the paper.

The judge said both sides had won victories so far and each should bear their costs up to now.

But Harry was also ordered to pay towards the future costs of NGN’s lawyers, who face extra work due to the Duke’s amended case.

Mr Hudson KC, for NGN, told the court the bid to alter Harry’s claim was a “radical intended revision” of his case.

He also accused Harry of “trying to ride two horses galloping in completely different directions”.

In a statement after Thursday’s ruling, News Group Newspapers said: “The High Court has today, in a significant victory for News Group Newspapers, dismissed The Duke of Sussex’s phone hacking claims against both the News of the World and The Sun.

“In arguing his case, the Duke of Sussex had alleged a ‘secret agreement’ existed between him/Buckingham Palace and NGN which stopped NGN from asserting that the Duke’s claim had been brought too late.

“It is quite clear there was never any such agreement and it is only the Duke who has ever asserted there was.”

Earlier tonight, a source commented: “This judgement will only add to Harry’s woes.

“Everything in the garden is not rosy and now the Prince has had his High Court evidence publicly pulled apart in a humiliating fashion.”

4

IMPLAUSIBLE CLAIMS INSULT TO THE QUEEN

By Michael Hamilton

PRINCE Harry’s legal team dragged the late Queen into their claims of a “secret agreement” between Palace officials and newspaper execs.

The Duke of Sussex argued that he found out about the “deal” in 2012 — and it stopped him bringing a case against News Group Newspapers.

In a hearing earlier this month, Harry’s barrister David Sherborne said Queen Elizabeth II, who died aged 96 in September 2022, was involved in “discussions and authorisation” of the supposed deal.

That meant Harry “could not bring a claim against NGN for phone hacking at that time”.

The agreement was said to mean members of the Royal Family would not sue and cases would later be “admitted or settled with an apology”.

But, despite claims of the Queen’s approval, there was not a “shred of evidence” to support his claims.

Anthony Hudson, KC for NGN, said: “He has had years and months to gather evidence and he hasn’t done that at all.

“There is not a single shred of evidence.”

High Court Judge Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that Harry’s evidence was “implausible”.