Skip to main contentSkip to footer
Prince Harry says 'it's a great day' as he's awarded £140,600 in phone hacking claim against newspaper in High Court case
Newsletter
Newsletter

Subscribe

Subscribe
Follow HELLO! at:

Prince Harry says 'it's a great day' as he's awarded £140,600 in phone hacking claim against newspaper in High Court case

The judgement in the Duke of Sussex's case against Mirror Group Newspapers was made on Friday

Prince Harry at High Court in March 2023
Matthew Moore
Online News Writer & Diversity and Inclusion Lead
Share this:

Prince Harry  has been awarded £140,600 after bringing a High Court phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers. 

In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt concluded there was "extensive" phone hacking generally by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) from 2006 to 2011, "even to some extent" during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.

The judge also ruled that the Duke's phone was probably hacked "to a modest extent" by the publisher.

Reading a statement on Harry's behalf outside the High Court, his lawyer David Sherborne said: "Today is a great day for truth, as well as accountability." 

Watch the moment below...

WATCH: Prince Harry hails phone hacking ruling as 'great day for truth'

In his summary, Judge Fancourt: "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."

Prince Harry's statement in full

"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 of Mirror Group’s newspaper titles (The Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The People) on a habitual and widespread basis for more than a decade. 

I’d like to thank my legal team for so successfully dismantling the sworn testimony of Mirror Group Newspaper's senior executives, legal department and journalists who at least turned up to Court, 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. The Court has found that Mirror Group’s principal board directors, their legal department, senior executives, and editors such as Piers Morgan, clearly knew about or were involved in these illegal activities. Between them, they even went as far as lying under oath to parliament, during the Leveson Inquiry, to the Stock Exchange, and to us all ever since.

The journey to justice can be a slow and painful one, and since bringing my claim almost five years ago, defamatory stories and intimidating tactics have been deployed against me and at my family’s expense. And so, as I too have learnt through this process, patience is in fact a virtue – especially in the face of vendetta journalism.

I hope that the Court’s findings will serve as a warning to all media organisations who have employed these practices and similarly lied about them. Mirror Group’s actions were so calculated and misleading that their pattern of destroying evidence and concealing their unlawful behaviour continued into the litigation itself and, as the Judge has ruled, even to this day. 

 I am happy to have won the case, especially given that this trial only looked at a quarter of my entire claim. Even on just that, it is clear Mirror Group’s persistent attempts to suggest that my claim was, to quote their counsel, “fantastical” and was in the “realms of total speculation” and that there was “simply no evidence at all” to suggest I was hacked, “zilch, zero, nil, nada, niente absolutely nothing,” were total nonsense and were used maliciously to attack my character and credibility. However, as Mirror Group intended, these hollow soundbites were blasted across front pages and across online platforms, and into the next day’s morning television shows. The Court has in fact confirmed that all four claimants were subjected to voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering. But no one would have believed that was the case given how this trial has been covered in the UK.

My commitment to seeing this case through is based on my belief in our need and collective right to a free and honest press, and one which is properly accountable when necessary. That is what we need in Britain and across the globe. Anything else is poisoning the well for a profession we all depend on. The acts listed in this judgement are prime examples of what happens when the power of the press is abused. 

I respectfully call upon 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 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’s a worthwhile price to pay. The mission continues."

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."

The case was brought after the Prince sued the publisher for damages, claiming journalists at its titles – the Daily and Sunday Mirror and Sunday People – were linked to methods including phone hacking, blagging or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.

His 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 span a period from as early as 1991 until at least 2011, the court heard. The high-profile trial spanned seven weeks and concluded in June. Harry flew over from the US to spend eight hours of questioning in the witness box, over two days.

David Sherborne reads statement on behalf of Prince Harry outside court© Getty
Barrister David Sherborne read out a statement on behalf of the Duke

During questioning, the royal said he would be "disappointed" if the court didn't find in his and the other plaintiffs' favour, saying: "To have a decision against me and any of the other people [bringing a claim], given that Mirror Group have admitted hacking, yes, it would feel some injustice… if it wasn't accepted."

Harry also opened up about the impact on his personal life that some of the articles published had, including the breakdown of his relationship with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.

Prince Harry and Chelsy Davy sitting on the grass in front of a car wearing sunglasses© Getty
Harry said that reports had impacted his relationship with ex-girlfriend Chelsy

"These kinds of articles made me feel as though my relationship with Chelsy was always set to be doomed," he said. "Ultimately, these factors led her to make the decision that a royal life was not for her, which was incredibly upsetting for me at the time."

Evidence was also heard from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators, and MGN executives. Other witnesses, such as the family, friends, and colleagues of those bringing cases against the publisher, submitted written testimonies.

Prince Harry with paperwork outside court © Getty
Harry gave evidence in court in June

The publisher made a limited number of admissions of unlawful activity in relation to Harry, 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.

The Duke's judgement comes shortly after he was delivered a blow in court when Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that Harry would have to pay legal costs amounting to £48,000 after he lost part of his libel trial against the Mail on Sunday.

The father-of-two brought a libel case against the newspaper following an article it published about his security arrangements, which the Duke claimed had suggested Harry had "lied" and "cynically" tried to manipulate public opinion.

Harry's lawyers attempted to have Associated Newspapers' defence thrown out, however, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled against this. The trial is still expected to go ahead, with hearings scheduled in mid-May to July next year.

LISTEN: A Right Royal Podcast: saying goodbye to The Crown

Other Topics

More Royalty

See more