THE bungling BBC has admitted an embarrassing "lapse in standards" over its coverage of Harry's security case court loss.
Moaning Harry, 40, wailed on for half an hour virtually unchallenged to a Beeb journalist while taking swipes at the courts, the UK, the Royal Family and the British government last Friday.
The interview aired just hours after ex-working royal Harry lost his court bid to make British taxpayers cough up the bill for armed protection.
He blamed the decision on an "establishment stitch-up".
The following morning, the BBC flagship current affairs programme Radio 4 stunned listeners in a one-sided interview with former close protection officer Richard Aitch.
In a statement on their website the BBC said: "The programme covered the latest developments in the story of Prince Harry and his legal case around protection for him and his family in the UK and interviewed former close protection officer Richard Aitch to get a broader understanding of security considerations.
They added: "Claims were repeated that the process had been 'an establishment stitch-up' and we failed to properly challenge this and other allegations."
In their correction the Beeb admitted they should have carried the Home Office and Buckingham Palace response to the ruling.
The BBC said: "This case is ultimately the responsibility of the Home Office and we should have reflected their statement.
"We also should have given the view of Buckingham Palace."
In a damning confession for the national broadcaster, they added: "This was a lapse in our usual high editorial standards."
The statement they missed by the Home Office - which came after the court's decision - read: “We are pleased that the Court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case.
"The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.
"It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”
While the Buckingham Palace response was: "All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion."
Harry's interview with the BBC stunned Buckingham Palace and has torpedoed any chance the Royal Family would want to reconcile with the California-based prince.
Amid the BBC's blushes, Prince Harry’s lawyers were slammed by a judge when they returned to court yet again today.
They were accused of thinking “they are in control of the litigation” and for making applications that were “not focused” enough.
The Duke of Sussex and six others including Elton John are accusing Daily Mail-owner Associated Newspapers of misuse of private information through unlawful information gathering.
David Sherborne, for the claimants, kicked off a two-day case management hearing by arguing that documents disclosed by ANL should have further names unredacted.
He told the court: “We are demonstrating the importance of having names.
"It’s the only way to demonstrate our case, which is that the defendant instructed various private investigators to carry on unlawful information gathering.”
But judge Mr Justice Nicklin criticised that his "redaction application is not focused” and warned against opening out the case into a “public inquiry”.
He asked what control mechanisms had been put forward to stop them using more examples.
And he criticised Sherborne for producing documents at the last minute, saying it “isn’t the way to do it”.
He also slammed him for going off course. He said: “Part of the exercise we were supposed to be carrying out was looking at amendments to your particulars of claim.
“I wanted the amendments. You have had the disclosure. The purpose of this hearing was for you to put forward amendments to your pleaded claims in light of the disclosure and you have put forward none.”
He added later he had the impression “the claimants’ team think they are in control of the litigation. They are not.”
Anthony White KC, for ANL, also criticised that Mr Sherborne was “seeking to expand the case”.
The claimants, also including actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley and politician Sir Simon Hughes, have accused the publisher of allegedly carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to tap phones, "blagging" private records, and burglaries to order.
ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal action, previously describing the claims as "lurid" and "simply preposterous".
Mr Sherborne told the hearing in London: "The approach to disclosure has shown only a partial picture of the wrongdoing."
He added that there was redaction of parts of the documents which are necessary to understand the "true extent of the unlawful information gathering", which he later claimed was "habitual and widespread".
In written submissions, the barrister said the "overbroad redactions" by lawyers for ANL had made many documents "incomprehensible or extremely time-consuming to analyse".
Mr Sherborne later added: "The claimants' cases allege a web of illegal acts - pulling on threads of that web may reveal more of the pattern.
Antony White KC, for ANL, said in written submissions that - as well as denying the claims - the publisher has "advanced a positive explanation" for where information in the articles used in the legal case came from.
Addressing the redactions, the barrister said: "Both sides applied redactions to their documents on grounds of irrelevance and legal privilege."
6,000.000+downloads/Free/Bengali/Version2.3.4
777 BDT IPL 2025 Sports First Deposit Bonus
