Prince Harry has won in just under half of his claims of unlawful information gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a High Court ruling today.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its titles – the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People – were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called “blagging” or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.
MGN denied 28 out of the 33 historical articles involved unlawful information gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.
Mr Justice Fancourt gave his ruling this morning in favour of Harry on 15 out of the 33 claims. He will be awarded £140,600 in damages, just under a third of the £443,000 he'd asked for.
His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by three others, including actor Michael Turner, aka Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Mr Turner on 4 of his 27 claims, awarding him £31,650 in damages.
Meghan Markle 'to unleash her own memoirs' as Prince Harry's drops next week
Claims brought by actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse, were dismissed because they were made too late.
In a summary of his ruling, the judge said: “I have found the duke’s case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only. I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.
“I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper. However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).
"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.”
Legal representatives seen arriving outside the High Court on Friday morningMr Justice Fancourt continued: “I have accordingly awarded the duke damages in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved. I have also awarded a further sum to compensate the duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him.
“I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the press towards the duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.”
An MGN spokesperson said after the ruling: “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.”
The high-profile trial ended in June after seven weeks of evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives. Many other witnesses also submitted written testimony to the trial, such as the friends, family and colleagues of those bringing cases against the publisher.
Harry faced eight hours of questioning over two days during a witness box appearance that drew the attention of the world’s media. MGN largely contested the claims and denied that any newspaper articles complained of resulted from phone hacking, while contending that the vast majority did not arise from any other unlawful activity.
The Duke has been involved in five cases at the High Court, including similar claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN). His civil litigation also features a challenge against the Home Office over the provision of his personal security and the linked libel claim against ANL.
Harry and Meghan convinced 'royals were against them' after New Year photo snub
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
