Prince Harry trial – latest: Phone hacking claim looks at 147 articles on Duke of Sussex
Third day of Duke of Sussex’s trial against Mirror publisher is underway
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.As the third day of Prince Harry’s hearing against the Mirror Group Newspapers (MGM) resumed today, the court heard that there are 147 articles on the Duke of Sussex involved.
Discussing Harry’s case, his lawyer David Sherborne said out of the 147 articles, 33 are being examined in the trial - in his claim.
He said: “The Duke of Sussex, one of the most prominently covered individuals by the defendant’s titles... [MGN]’s case is throughout the entire period... there was only one occasion of unlawful information gathering.”
In written submissions, Mr Sherborne said the duke’s claim covered the period 1995 to 2011 and is “significant not just in terms of the span but also the range of activities”.
The barrister previously alleged that those responsible for management and finances of the company “were well aware of what was going on”.
The claims brought forward by four individuals, including Harry, include phone hacking, securing information through deception - also known as “blagging” - and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities.
Lawyer’s opening speech ‘could have been casting meeting for I’m A Celebrity'
Our sketch writer Tom Peck has more on yesterday’s opening day, and the celebrities involved in the trial:
At day one of his case against the Daily Mail, Prince Harry made a surprise appearance in court with Elton John – but not today.
No stubbled ginger jawline, no glowering eyes poked out from the back row of benches. There was precious little to distract attention from the clipped vowels of lawyer David Sherborne as he set off, yet again, for a rapid gallop around the dysfunctional tabloid world of the late Nineties and early 2000s, all of which has been extensively covered before.
Actually, that’s not quite true. The rest of team “various” was out in force. Michael Turner, better known as Michael Le Vell, better known as Kevin Webster, the mechanic from Coronation Street sat dutifully behind Mr Sherborne. So did Nikki Sanderson, also of Corrie fame, and Ingrid Tarrant, of Chris Tarrant’s ex-wife fame.
Sherborne’s opening speech could easily have been a casting meeting for I’m A Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! circa 2003. For most of the day, hardly a sentence was uttered that did not feature some vaguely famous person or other. Mark Bosnich got a mention several times, as did Sarah Harding.
Which celebrities does the trial concern?
While the judge has selected four “test cases” to go to trial in order to set the potential threshold for damages the publisher will pay if it loses, there are a number of other celebrities with possible stakes in the outcome.
Alongside Prince Harry, the other people selected for trial are former Coronation Street actors Nikki Sanderson and Michael Turner, and comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife Fiona Wightman.
If they are succcessful, the court will then consider cases from former Girls Aloud member Cheryl, the estate of the late singer George Michael, ex-footballer and presenter Ian Wright and actor Ricky Tomlinson.
Prince Harry’s lawyer arrives at High Court
Lawyer David Sherborne, who is representing those accusing the Mirror publisher of unlawful information gathering, has been pictured arriving at the High Court this morning.
Unlawful information gathering was ‘authorised at highest levels’ of publisher, lawyer claims
As the second day of the trial gets under way, the High Court has been told that unlawful information-gathering activities were authorised “at the highest levels” within Mirror Group Newspapers.
David Sherborne, barrister for Prince Harry and others bringing claims against the publisher, said one of the “most seriously troubling features” of their cases was the allegation that those responsible for management and finances of the company “were well aware of what was going on”.
In written arguments, Mr Sherborne claimed “the systemic and widespread use of PIs by MGN journalists to unlawfully obtain private information was authorised at senior levels”, including desk heads, editors, managing editors and senior executives.
ICYMI: What happened on the first day of the trial?
For those just joining us on the blog, here is a quick recap of yesterday’s opening to the trial:
Barrister David Sherborne, acting on behalf of Prince Harry and three other celebrities, said that the case featured unlawful activities on an “industrial scale carried out across three newspapers over a period of about 20 years or so”.
He added: “It was a flood of illegality. But worse still, this flood was being authorised and approved of by senior executives.”
The court was also told that Coronation Street actor Michael Turner, who plays Kevin Webster in the soap, was accused by fellow cast members of being a tabloid “mole” amid alleged phone hacking by journalists.
And the Duke of Sussex is said to have feared for the safety of his former partner Chelsy Davy as a result of press intrusion, which he blamed for the breakdown of their relationship.
‘False insinuations’ by publisher led to physical abuse in street, claims ex-Coronation Street actor
One of the four claimants, former Coronation Street actor Nikki Sanderson says she experienced abuse in the street following “false insinuations” in articles published by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), the High Court was told yesterday.
In court documents, her lawyers claim she experienced “unusual telephone and media-related activity” which was consistent with the “unauthorised accessing of her voicemails and other unlawful information gathering”, with private information appearing in newspapers with “no legitimate explanation” as to how.
Mr Sherborne, the actress’s barrister, said she said it was “‘scary’ feeling like she was always being watched, and ‘upsetting’ that MGN’s conduct caused the lines between her public and private life to blur, making her believe that she was ‘public property’.”
“The impact of the stories on Nikki Sanderson was aggravated by their false insinuations that she was promiscuous, causing her great upset and giving rise to her being subjected to mental and physical abuse, having people shout at her in the street calling her a ‘wh***’, ‘sl**’ or ‘sl**’ and even being physically assaulted on numerous occasions,” Mr Sherborne said.
“It gave rise to her feeling in a constant state of paranoia, distrusting everyone around her.”
In its trial defence, the publisher says Ms Sanderson’s claim is brought too late, but “unreservedly apologises” over four payments made to private investigators which it admits are evidence of instructions to unlawfully obtain her private information.
The publisher also claims that evidence does not suggest Ms Sanderson’s phone was successfully hacked.
'Inconceivable' that Piers Morgan did not know about alleged activities
In the second day of the trial, barrister David Sherborne alleged that it is “inconceivable” that Piers Morgan and several other editors at Mirror Group Newspapers were unaware of certain activities alleged by the claimants.
“Even people you would expect to be ensuring honesty ... [were] themselves so bound up in this wrongdoing,” he told the High Court. “It’s no wonder it was so widespread ... it is no wonder it was so successfully covered up by the PLC.”
“We say the case goes higher than just the journalists,” Mr Sherborne added. “The condoning of these activities meant these journalists were able to continue them at this widespread level ... At all levels, the defendant’s organisation was concealing unlawful activity because it was well aware of how damaging it was.
In written submissions, Mr Sherborne continued: “It is inconceivable that this information, which was readily available on MGN’s system, was not known by the editors, Piers Morgan, Tina Weaver and Mark Thomas, the managing editors, and the legal department ... and the board.
“Despite that, neither the legal department nor the board took any action to prevent the continued use of such techniques by MGN journalists.”
Story about late Queen’s cousin was ‘obtained illegally’, court told
A front-page Daily Mirror article in 1999 which claimed Prince Michael of Kent was in £2.5m debt to a bank was “obtained illegally”, the High Court has been told.
“At the time of the Prince Michael of Kent story, [the paper] was edited by Piers Morgan,” said lawyer David Sherborne, adding that he was “a very hands-on editor” with “a close connection to the board” at Mirror Group Newspapers.
“The story had been published with sufficient confidence in the face of a denial from Prince Michael himself,” Mr Sherborne said, alleging that it had been “obtained illegally” using private investigators.
He continued that when Prince Michael raised a legal complaint against MGN, Mr Morgan said the allegation came from “an impeccable source who has an intimate knowledge” of the royal’s finances.
Mr Sherborne said: “Mr Morgan, and the MGN lawyers he consulted before writing this letter, knew full well that the information had been obtained unlawfully and that the criminal law had in fact been breached, and the ‘impeccable source’ they referred to was in fact (private investigator Jonathan) Rees.”
MGN later settled Prince Michael’s claim, agreeing to publish an apology and pay his legal costs, Mr Sherborne said. Mr Morgan has previously denied involvement in phone hacking.
Piers Morgan ‘lies at the heart’ of claims against Mirror publisher, court told
Piers Morgan “lies at the heart” of claims against its publisher over alleged unlawful information-gathering, the High Court has been told.
In the second day of the trial, David Sherborne, representing the Duke of Sussex and other individuals bringing legal challenges against Mirror Group Newspapers, began detailing instances of such alleged activity.
“What we have, we say, is the direct involvement of Mr Morgan in a number of these incidents,” the lawyer said.
“Mr Morgan lies right at the heart of this in a number of ways. He was a very hands-on editor, also very closely connected to the board.”
Mr Morgan, who was the Mirror’s editor between 1995 and 2004, has previously denied involvement in phone hacking. He told the BBC this week: “I think phone hacking is completely wrong and shouldn’t have been happening, and it was lazy journalists being lazy.”
MGN board ‘has vested interest’ in alleged activities not being publicised, court told
The board of Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) had a “vested interest” in the “growing” knowledge of alleged unlawful information-gathering not becoming public, the High Court has been told.
Laywer David Sherborne claimed such practices were authorised “at the highest levels” of the company, alleging that “the knowledge of the board grew as the narrative progressed” amid the “growing body of knowledge about the widespread activity”.
Mr Sherborne said it had to be borne in mind “the ramifications” for shareholders if this came out, adding: “They have a very clear vested interest in this not becoming public and no-one being able to bring a claim.”
Lawyers for the publisher say they have provided evidence from board members denying awareness of unlawful information-gathering activities.
Andrew Green KC, for MGN, said in written submissions the duke and others had made “serious allegations” of dishonesty with legal arguments that “are far from adequate”, adding: “The claimants have not provided any direct evidence of a member of the board or legal department making a false or dishonest statement.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments