Duke of Sussex hails phone hacking ruling as ‘great day for truth’

The Duke of Sussex has said his GBP140,600 damages award after bringing a phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) at the High Court was a "great day for truth as well as accountability". Harry, 39, sued 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. In a summary of his 386-page ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke's phone was probably hacked "to a modest extent" by the publisher.

He also found that there was "extensive" phone hacking generally by MGN from 2006 to 2011, "even to some extent" during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards. Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that unlawful information-gathering was "widespread" at all three Mirror Group titles from 1996 onwards, and phone hacking became "habitual" from 1998. The unlawful activity was "concealed" from Parliament, shareholders and the public, as well as the board overseeing MGN, the judge said.

Reading a statement on Harry's behalf outside the High Court in London, his lawyer, David Sherborne, said: "Today is a great day for truth, as well as accountability. "The court has ruled that unlawful and criminal activities were carried out at all three Mirror Group newspaper titles: the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and The People; on a habitual and widespread basis for over more than a decade.

The Duke of Sussex's lawyer, David Sherborne, reads a statement on behalf of the royal (Jordan Pettitt/PA) "I'd like to thank my legal team for so successfully dismantling the sworn testimony of Mirror Group's senior executives, legal department and journalists who at least turned up, unlike their colleagues, who were perhaps too afraid to do so.

"This case is not just about hacking - it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behaviour, followed by cover-ups and destruction of evidence, the shocking scale of which can only be revealed through these proceedings." Story continues He said acts listed in the judgment were "prime examples of what happens when the power of the press is abused" and called on "the authorities, the financial regulator, the stock market who were deliberately deceived by Mirror group, and indeed the Metropolitan Police and prosecuting authorities, to do their duty for the British public and to investigate bringing charges against the company and those who have broken the law".

"Today's ruling is vindicating and affirming. I've been told that slaying dragons will get you burned but, in light of today's victory and the importance of doing what is needed for a free and honest press, it is a worthwhile price to pay. The mission continues," the duke's statement added.

Michael Le Vell's case was found 'proved to a limited extent' (James Manning/PA Wire)

Harry's case was heard alongside similar claims brought by actor Michael Turner, who is known professionally as Michael Le Vell and is most famous for playing Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse. The allegations in their claims about unlawful activity at MGN's titles covered a period from as early as 1991 until at least 2011, the court was previously told. Claims brought by Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman were dismissed by Mr Justice Fancourt because they were made too late, despite the judge finding that some of their complaints were proved.

Mr Turner was awarded a total of GBP31,650 in damages after the judge ruled his phone hacking and unlawful information-gathering case was "proved only to a limited extent".

Former Coronation Street actress Nikki Sanderson's case was dismissed as too late (Aaron Chown/PA) Their cases were considered as "representative" of the types of allegations facing MGN and Mr Justice Fancourt's findings could affect the outcome of other claims, which include challenges brought by actor Ricky Tomlinson, the estate of the late singer George Michael, ex-footballer and television presenter Ian Wright and Girls Aloud singer Cheryl. 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." In a summary of his ruling, the judge said the duke's case over voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering was "proved in part only". He said that 15 of the 33 articles about Harry examined at trial "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," the judge added. Mr Justice Fancourt said this happened "on occasions" from around the end of 2003 to April 2009. He added: "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." The judge said he was awarding damages to the duke where unlawful information-gathering was proved, and also to compensate him "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," the judge continued.

"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." He said damages were also awarded to the duke "to reflect the particular hurt and sense of outrage that the duke feels because two directors of Trinity Mirror plc (as MGN's parent company was formerly known), to whom the board had delegated day-to-day responsibility for such matters, knew about the illegal activity that was going on at their newspapers and could and should have put a stop to it". "Instead of doing so, they turned a blind eye to what was going on, and positively concealed it.

Had the illegal conduct been stopped, the misuse of the duke's private information would have ended much sooner," the judge said. The high-profile trial of the claims, which saw Harry give evidence from the witness box, ended in June after seven weeks of evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives. 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 publisher made a limited number of admissions of unlawful activity in relation to the duke, Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman, for which the publisher apologised and accepted they will be entitled to some damages, but denied the majority of their claims and Mr Turner's entire case.