Prince Harry wins phone hacking lawsuit against tabloid

Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex has been awarded £140,600 following his phone hacking lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

The 39-year-old 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 High Court ruling on Friday (December 15), Mr Justice Fancourt, the judge who oversaw a trial of the claims earlier this year, said there was “extensive” phone hacking by the tabloid from 2006 to 2011, “even to some extent” during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.

He said Harry's phone was probably hacked “to a modest extent” by the newspaper, adding there was a tendency by the Duke to assume everything was a result of hacking.

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 comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife, Fiona Wightman.

The allegations in their claims about unlawful activity at MGN’s titles cover a period from as early as 1991 until at least 2011, the court was told. 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 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.