Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
Prince Harry has accused the Mirror newspapers of “vendetta journalism” after a High Court judge found that he was the victim of phone hacking and awarded him damages in his latest battle with the media.
Former editor Piers Morgan, who was named in the judgment, has since denied hacking phones and launched a blistering attack on the prince, accusing him of attempting to “destroy the British monarchy”.
In an extraordiary statement outside his home, the TalkTV host said: “As I’ve consistently said for many years now, I’ve never hacked a phone or told anyone else to and nobody has provided any actual evidence to prove that I did.”
This came after the judge accepted evidence by royal author Omid Scobie that Mr Morgan had been aware of voicemail interception, and had authorised its use in a story about Kylie Minogue.
The Duke of Sussex was one of four test cases selected to be heard after he sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for obtaining information using unlawful means, such as private investigators or gaining information by deception.
Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that 15 out of 33 articles examined were the product of hacking and that the prince’s personal phone had been targeted between 2003 and 2009, before awarding him £140,600 for the distress caused.
At a short hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, it was ruled that “extensive” phone-hacking took place at the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and The People, from 2006 to 2011.
The key revelations include:
- Unlawful information gathering had been “widespread” at the publications, and had continued “even to some extent” during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.
- Of the 51 private investigators used, 11 of those were used “very substantially” by the publisher to carry out “very extensive and habitual” unlawful activity, while a further 13 also engaged in a “significant amount”.
- Mr Morgan said he had “zero knowledge” of hacking, and launched a scathing attack on Prince Harry, claiming he “wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him in his Californian-tanned face”.
- The Mirror group has apologised “unreservedly” while the duke has called for the Metropolitan Police to investigate.
The Duke of Sussex with his lawyer David Sherborne
(REUTERS)
While finding that 15 of the articles were a product of hacking his phone or his associates phones, Mr Justice Fancourt said this was to a “modest extent” and “carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper”.
He awarded damages for the “distress” caused by the articles, and the “particular hurt and sense of outrage” felt by the duke.
The prince became the first member of the royal family in 130 years to take to the witness stand over the course of the seven-week trial, in which he accused the newspapers of hacking on an “industrial scale”.
Piers Morgan said he had ‘zero knowledge’ of phone hacking
(PA)
His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by Coronation Street star Michael Turner, actress Nikki Sanderson and comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife, Fiona Wightman.
Each of the claimants had accused senior editors and executives at MGN of approving this behaviour, with Mr Morgan mentioned on several occasions over the course of the trial.
In a significant part of his judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt referenced the evidence given by royal author Omid Scobie who claimed to have witnessed Mr Morgan being informed of phone-hacking while he was working as an intern on the entertainment desk.
“I found Mr Scobie to be a straight-forward and reliable witness and I accept what he said about Mr Morgan’s involvement in the Minogue/Gooding story. No evidence was called by MGN to contradict it,” the judge said.
Prince Harry has been awarded £140,600 in damages for the distress caused by phone-hacking
(Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)
While Harry claimed 140 stories that appeared in MGN papers were a result of phone-hacking or other unlawful behaviour, the trial only considered 33 of these, which included articles about his sports injuries, drug-taking and his relationships with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.
In the first of three phone-hacking claims he is bringing against British newspaper groups, Harry said that he was left feeling paranoid and distrustful throughout his teenage years and twenties.
Speaking of a story in which a photograph was published of him meeting the late presenter Caroline Flack, he said: “The impact these kinds of stories had on my relationships cannot be underestimated. Even those I trusted the most, I ended up doubting.”
The duke has launched several legal battles since relocating to California with his wife Meghan Markle
(REUTERS)
Taking to the stand over the course of two days, Harry said he would “feel some injustice” if the judge concluded his phone was not hacked by Mirror reporters.
MGN had contested the claims and denied that any of the articles complained about had resulted from phone hacking. While the publisher had made a limited number of admissions of unlawful activity in relation to the duke and apologised, they denied the majority of the claims.
While Andrew Green KC, the Mirror’s barrister, admitted the company had hacked many other celebrities’ voicemails during the early 2000s, he insisted the prince did not have a “single item” of evidence that he was targeted.
He accused the publisher of hacking his voicemails with former girlfriend Chelsy Davy
(Getty Images)
However, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that it was “implausible” his phone had not been targeted, given that hacking and unlawful information gathering was widespread at the time.
His written judgment said: “The duke has been one of the most important story lines in town for much of his life, and remains so.
“The idea that MGN carefully eschewed in his case what had become a primary journalistic tool – which it otherwise used on a widespread and habitual basis – is unconvincing.”
Speaking on his behalf outside court, his lawyer Mr Sherbourne said the “journey to justice can be a slow and painful one”, and said that board executives and editors such as Piers Morgan “clearly knew” of hacking.
Michael Turner, known professionally as Michael Le Vell, was also awarded damages (James Manning/PA)
(PA Wire)
He added that while “slaying dragons will get you burned”, he reaffirmed his “mission continues” in establishing an honest press.
Claims brought by Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman, were dismissed by Mr Justice Fancourt because they were made too late, while Mr Turner was awarded a total of £31,650 in damages.
Following the ruling, an MGN spokesperson said: “We welcome today’s judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago.
“Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”
✕
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
SubscribeAlready subscribed? Log in
Popular videos
{{/link}}