Phone hacking by the Mirror Group newspapers was deemed extensive by a High Court judge, spanning from 2006 to 2011. This ruling emerged from a privacy case brought by Prince Harry. According to Judge Mr Justice Fancourt, the hacking persisted during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards, albeit to a certain extent.
The court validated a portion of the Duke of Sussex’s case, affirming that 15 out of 33 articles presented were a result of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering. The judge noted a controlled, limited hacking of the Duke’s phone between 2003 and 2009, cautioning against presuming every incident was a hacking event.
Awarding Prince Harry £140,600, the judge attributed this sum to the acknowledgment by the newspaper group’s directors, who were aware of the wrongdoings and deliberately obscured them. In response, Prince Harry emphasised the case’s broader significance, highlighting it as a testament to a systemic pattern of illicit behaviour, cover-ups, and evidence destruction.
The court found key individuals within Mirror Group Newspapers complicit in these illegal activities, including notable figures like Piers Morgan, who were either knowledgeable about or actively involved in the unlawful practices. Prince Harry urged authorities to investigate and hold accountable those responsible for these breaches of the law.
David Sherborne KC reads out Prince Harry's statement.
— Haggis_UK ???????? ???????? (@Haggis_UK) December 15, 2023
"The court has found that Mirror group's principle board directors, their legal department, senior executives & editors, such as Piers Morgan, clearly knew about or were involved in these illegal activities.." pic.twitter.com/Pqcfa4YuGV
Moreover, the ruling favoured actor Michael Le Vell, granting him £31,650 in damages for articles resulting from phone hacking or unlawful information collection. However, claims by soap actress Nikki Sanderson and comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife, Fiona Wightman, were barred due to expiration.
The judgment highlighted the prevalence of unlawful practices within the newspaper group, dating back to 1995 and escalating into habitual misconduct from 1998 onwards, persisting until 2011. The judge revealed that while two MGN directors were aware of phone hacking, they concealed this information from the board, the public, and even during the Leveson Inquiry.
In response, an MGN spokesperson expressed regret for historical wrongdoing, apologised unreservedly, took responsibility, and provided compensation. The case, involving allegations of phone hacking and other controversial methods by journalists, ended after a seven-week civil trial where Prince Harry testified, marking a rare instance of a senior royal giving evidence in court.
The litigation shed light on unlawful information gathering starting from the duke’s childhood and encompassing a fraction of the numerous articles published about him from 1996 to 2009. MGN disputed these claims and contested the timing of legal actions by some claimants.
Many argue that Piers Morgan should be in prison, not earning millions by spewing his opinions.
What do you think?
Penny Lane
If you would like your interests… published, submit via https://dorseteye.com/submit-a-report/
Join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
