Prince Harry’s trial against Mirror Group Newspapers is well underway. Last week saw him give evidence in court over two days – the first member of the Royal Family to do so in over a century.
Harry – and three other claimants – are having their claims against the publishing company tested in a trial due to last nearly two months. They accuse MGN of unlawfully gathering information about them by using private investigators to ‘blag’ their confidential information and hacking their phones.
In 2015, the publishing company was found to have a “widespread culture of phone-hacking from journalists up to editors” and that the practice was “institutionalised and long-standing” in a similar claim.
MGN has said of the current trial that it has apologised where “historical wrongdoings” had occurred, adding: “But we will vigorously defend against allegations of wrongdoing where our journalists acted lawfully.
A Timeline of Key Mentions
One editor, Piers Morgan, has been mentioned multiple times in the trial so far, with allegations – that he unequivocally denies – that he knew about unlawful information gathering during his tenure as editor at the Daily Mirror.
Morgan has been a long-standing and very vocal critic of the Sussexes, and even last week said he wished Harry “luck with his privacy campaign… and look forward to reading about it in his next book”.
The Duke of Sussex has been forced to admit his Spare memoir has contradicted claims made in the High Court during his case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).
The Duke told the High Court he couldn’t remember whether he wanted to meet his mother’s former butler Paul Burrell, despite his opposition causing a rift with his brother, the Prince of Wales.
On Monday, Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, said the article showed how “seeds of discord” had been created between the brothers, as he claimed unlawful information gathering by tabloid newspapers played a part in the deterioration of their relationship.
The 2003 article in the People newspapers claimed the brothers disagreed over whether to meet Mr Burrell, with William wanting to in an attempt to prevent him from selling other stories, while Harry was against it because he was a “two-faced s— “.
But when the Duke was questioned on Tuesday about the report, it was pointed out to him that his apparent opposition was not included in his memoir. “There is no suggestion in Spare that you were firmly against a meeting,” said Mr Green.
Significant Mentions and Implications
Harry responded: “No because I wrote it when I was 38, and in this story, I was 18. I assume I would have wanted a meeting… I’d love to give him a piece of my mind,” Harry told the High Court on Tuesday.
David Sherborne, for Harry, told the court on Thursday that 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”.
“Even people you would expect to be ensuring honesty … [were] themselves so bound up in this wrongdoing,” he said. “It’s no wonder it was so widespread … 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.”
Mr Sherborne insisted Morgan was “at the heart of” claims against the publisher, which apologised to Harry on Wednesday over an instance involving a private investigator but contests the other claims.
“What we have, we say, is the direct involvement of Morgan in several of these incidents,” the lawyer said. “Morgan lies right at the heart of this in several ways. He was a very hands-on editor and closely connected to the board.”
Outlining one of the more than 200 articles – published between 1991 and 2011 – which are reported to be included in the complaint, Mr Sherborne alleged that a front-page Mirror article in 1999, which claimed Prince Michael of Kent was in £2.5m debt to a bank, had been “obtained illegally”.
Noting that Morgan had been Mirror editor then, Mr Sherborne continued: “The story had been published with sufficient confidence in the face of a denial from Prince Michael himself.”
