Closing summary
The litigation against Mirror Group Newspapers has concluded for the day with Prince Harry finishing his evidence and former royal editor for the Mirror, Jane Kerr, starting hers.
The Duke of Sussex fought back tears late in the session as his barrister David Sherborne reflected on the damage caused by press intrusion.
Here’s a round up of the day’s key events:
Harry told the court he would feel “some injustice” if his claim against MGN is unsuccessful. He says phone hacking has been done on an “industrial scale” across at least three of the papers – and says any decision with his claim, he would “feel some injustice if it wasn’t accepted”.
The Mirror Group, represented by Andrew Green, said there was not a single item of evidence to show phone hacking.
Harry says it was “hurtful” to read stories that appeared gleeful about his break up with Chelsy Davy.
Harry told the court he believes articles about his relationship with Caroline Flack, the late television presenter, were obtained by phone hacking.
Harry denied his claims were in the “realms of speculation” as the Mirror barrister alleges, adding the Mirror has evidence of illegal information gathering, such as invoices for private investigators, in front of it.
Harry’s barrister read an email from Mirror journalist Katie Hind which describes how to hack phones.
The prince told the court that he once found a “tracking device” on a car belonging to Chelsy Davy, his ex-girlfriend.
The court heard Mirror journalist Jane Kerr attempted to get out of giving evidence last week, only to be forced to attend the trial by the judge.
In her witness statement, Kerr said she did not know how a private investigator obtained phone numbers “and never asked how”. She has denied obtaining information unlawfully.
Thanks for reading.
The court session has concluded for the day.
The judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, has warned Jane Kerr to not discuss her evidence with anyone before returning to court.
Sherborne asks Kerr about Splash News agency, which she recalls using.
He asks if she knew how they obtained their information?
She says she assumed they were doing it lawfully and had no reason to expect they were doing anything unlawful.
Updated
Sherborne asks Kerr about a journalist called Nick Pisa.
She says he was a freelancer and she would send Nick to cover stories.
Did you check the methods he used to provide the stories? Sherborne asks.
“No, because I knew Nick, and he gave us a story, we would check the story out. We would check the appropriate checks had been made and we would use the story,” Kerr replies.
You say you know Mr Pisa, you would know Nick Pisa commissioned Jonathan Stafford? Sherborne asks. (Stafford is a person alleged to be a so-called blagger of information).
I didn’t know he used Jonathan Stafford, she says.
Updated
Like Prince Harry, Jane Kerr has submitted a written statement, which is now publicly available.
In her witness statement, she said she did not know how a private investigator obtained phone numbers “and never asked how”.
Kerr said had been informed by MGN’s lawyers there was one payment record which refers to her name from Jonathan Stafford, someone the Duke of Sussex’s legal team have alleged to be a “known blagger” of information.
“I have been told that a partial admission has been made by MGN that a limited proportion of instructions to Stafford were to unlawfully obtain private information,” Kerr said.
She added: “I recall Jonathan Stafford though he was not my contact and I don’t recognise the details on the payment record shown to me.
“He was somebody used by the news desk to get telephone numbers. If you were following a story and weren’t able to door knock or needed a number so that you could approach someone for interview, you might call Jonathan to request that he searches for contact details.
“I don’t know how he got telephone numbers and never asked how. I certainly wouldn’t have told him how to do it. I had no reason to believe that the practices Stafford engaged in were unlawful nor did I instruct him to undertake such practices.”
Sherborne accuses Kerr of not telling “the whole truth” in her first witness statement.
She says she does not recall ever instructing anyone to do something unlawful.
Sherborne says she can’t remember what anyone did, so how can she say whether its lawful or unlawful.
Sherborne is putting the names of several private investigators to Kerr that he says she used when she was at the Mirror – but were absent from Kerr’s witness statement.
Kerr says she was presented a list of names and she was asked to say which she recognised.
Sherborne asks Kerr what steps she took to ensure work she was commissioning was done lawfully.
Kerr says she cannot recall specific actions she took but she would act if there was something in a story she was unsure about.
Updated
Sherborne turns to another private investigator, Coleman Rayner who he says Kerr used but failed to include in her witness statement.
“You sign a witness statement, in which you say, I have never used any private investigators that unlawfully obtain information,” Sherborne says.
But he asks how can she sign the statement if she is not sure which investigators she has used?
Kerr insists she has never knowingly used an investigator who have obtained information unlawfully.
Updated
Sherborne turns to questions about a private investigator called Franco Rey.
Kerr says she doesn’t remember him.
Sherborne says Franco Rey was a Spanish actor who appeared in the soap opera Eldorado, who carried out “blags” for British newspapers.
Blagging is knowingly or recklessly obtaining or disclosing personal data or information without the consent of the data controller.
“You didn’t care if it had been obtained lawfully or unlawfully did you?” Sherborne asks.
Kerr says she would care if something was done unlawfully.
The court session has resumed.
Prince Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, is cross-examining the former Mirror journalist Jane Kerr. His client, the Duke of Sussex remains in court sitting in the row of seats behind him.
Sherborne is asking Kerr about her use of a private investigation firm.
He is trying to get Kerr to reveal who would have asked her to use the private investigation firm, named Commercial and Legal Services, which she is said to have used 900 times.
Sherborne says she is avoiding the question, but eventually she lists the names of some of the news editors who worked at the Mirror.
Updated
The court has risen for a short break.
Returning to Harry’s evidence, the prince told the court that he once found a “tracking device” on a car belonging to Chelsy Davy, his ex-girlfriend.
The prince told the court that during his relationship with Davy in the mid-2000s, he was regularly amazed by how photographers and journalists were always able to track them down.
He said the press intrusion had a devastating impact on their relationship and contributed to their break-up.
He named private investigator Mike Behr as the individual who allegedly put the device on Davy’s car.
Barrister David Sherborne asked Prince Harry how he knew about the tracking device on the vehicle. Prince Harry replied: “We found it.”
Updated
My colleague, media editor Jim Waterson, has written up today’s proceedings. He writes:
Prince Harry does not have a “single item” of evidence his phone was hacked by journalists working for Mirror Group Newspapers, the high court has heard.
Andrew Green KC, the Mirror’s barrister, admitted the company’s journalists hacked many other celebrities’ voicemails during the 2000s. But he insisted there is no hard evidence Harry was targeted using this method, saying: “There is not a single item of call data, at any time, to your mobile phone.”
The royal alleged this was because Mirror journalists were using “burner phones” that they disposed of, ensuring no records were kept.
Harry appeared emboldened as he spent a second day in the witness box at the phone hacking trial at the high court, regularly pushing back on questions.
He told the court he would “feel some injustice” if the judge concluded his mobile phone was not hacked by reporters working for the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People tabloids.
The full article is here:
After giving evidence for eight hours, you might expect Prince Harry would want to leave the courtroom and have a break.
Instead, the prince has stayed behind in court to listen to the evidence of Jane Kerr, the former royal correspondent at the Mirror who he claims wrote many articles based on illegally obtained information.
By her own admission Kerr does not want to be in court and appears uncomfortable being cross-examined by barrister David Sherborne.
Updated
Jane Kerr, the former Mirror royal reporter, authored 10 of the 33 articles about Prince Harry that he claims came from illegal sources.
In her witness statement, she insists she has never engaged in voicemail interception or used private investigators to conduct illegal acts. She said she did not remember the sources of some of the stories.
But she insisted most of them were follow-ups of other newspapers’ articles, her summarising what appear in paparazzi photographs, or were based on quotes from official royal spokespeople.
Jane Kerr, the Mirror’s former royal reporter between 1997 and 2005, was the author of many of the articles that Prince Harry believes were obtained illegally.
The court heard that Kerr attempted to get out of giving evidence last week, only to be forced to attend the trial by the judge.
She has now started giving evidence to the trial and is being cross-examined by David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister.
Sherborne said the reporter commissioned private investigators on 900 different occasions while working on the Mirror’s newsdesk. She insists this was a regular part of her duties on the national newspaper.
Sherborne said: “Ms Kerr, you didn’t want to come today, did you?”
She replied: “No I didn’t.”
Afternoon summary
Prince Harry has concluded his evidence in support of his claim against Mirror Group Newspapers.
The Duke of Sussex fought back tears late in the session as his barrister David Sherborne reflected on the toll appearing in court has taken.
Here’s a round up of the day’s key events:
Harry told the court he would feel “some injustice” if his claim against MGN is unsuccessful. He said phone hacking had been done on an “industrial scale” across at least three of the papers – and said he would “feel some injustice” if his claim was not accepted.
The Mirror Group, represented by Andrew Green, said there was not a single item of evidence to show phone hacking.
Harry says it was “hurtful” to read stories that appeared gleeful about his break up with Chelsy Davy.
Harry told the court he believes articles about his relationship with Caroline Flack, the late television presenter, were obtained by phone hacking.
Harry denied his claims were in the “realms of speculation” as the Mirror barrister alleges, adding the Mirror has evidence of illegal information gathering, such as invoices for private investigators, in front of it.
Harry’s barrister read an email from Mirror journalist Katie Hind which describes how to hack phones.
Updated
Prince Harry concludes his evidence
After some brief questions from the judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, Harry concludes his evidence and is released from the courtroom.
Mirror journalist sent email discussing phone hacking
Sherborne presents an email in connection to the story about Harry and late television presenter Caroline Flack.
Sherborne says it contains a description of how to hack a celebrity’s phone.
This is an email that Katie Hind, the author of this article, is sending to someone at the Mirror. We can see here that she’s forwarding under the subject ‘pin numbers’ a description of how to hack a phone from a celebrity voicemail greeting website.
Emotional Harry says examination in court has been 'a lot'
Prince Harry appears choked and lost for words as his barrister asks him about the toll his appearance in court has taken.
Sherborne asked him: “Finally, Prince Harry, you have been in that witness box for over a day and a half.
“You have had to go through these articles and answer questions knowing this is a very public courtroom and the world’s media are watching, how has that made you feel?”
Harry falls silent, his head drops. He appears to be fighting back tears.
“It’s a lot,” he says, in a cracked voice.
Updated
Sherborne turns to the story about Caroline Flack, which earlier the court heard had been supplied by a picture agency called Ikon.
Photographers from the agency “stalked and harassed us for decades”, Harry says. “They were an enormous security issue.”
The article attributes a quote to an “onlooker”, which it was said was in fact one of the photographers.
“It doesn’t surprise me that in this case the journalists were relying on the paparazzi as a source but also intentionally misleading the readers, attributing it to an onlooker,” Harry says.
Do you have any idea how they knew where you were? Sherborne asks.
“No but my security team and my brother suspected consistent unlawful activity,” Harry replied.
Updated
Sherborne turns to the article about Harry’s ban on returning from Afghanistan.
Harry earlier contended that it was “suspicious” that so much had come from a “royal source” and that Mirror had “paid £500”.
Sherborne says the £500 went to a private investigator and shows Harry a document.
“Do you believe you were speculating when you suggested unlawful information gathering had been going on in that story?” Sherborne asks.
Harry says he was not speculating.
“For my whole life, the press misled me, covered up the wrongdoing, and sitting here in court knowing that the defence has the evidence in front of them and for Mr Green to suggest I’m speculating … I’m not sure what to say about that,” Harry says.
Updated
Sherborne asks Harry about the MGN barristers repeated accusation that the duke’s claims of illegal information gathering is in the “realm of speculation”.
Harry says he does not believe he is speculating and adds the phrase “in the realms of speculation” was used “as a headline this morning against me”.
He may have been alluding to the Daily Mail, which appears to be the only national newspaper with the quote prominently on its front page:
MAIL: He must have longed for the schmaltzy embrace of Oprah! #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/Yv26QmAXbv
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 6, 2023
Harry’s re-examination by his barrister, David Sherborne, has resumed after the lunch break.
The court has risen for a lunch break.
Harry's re-examination by his barrister begins
Prince Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, has started to re-examine his client.
Sherborne says Harry has been asked about the existence of call data, to which Harry says “burner phones” were used so call data was deleted.
Do you mean therefore no one actually did hack your phone? Sherborne asks.
“I believe they would have gone to extreme lengths to cover their tracks,” Harry replies.
Are you saying your phone was being hacked on a daily basis? Green asks.
It could have been, I don’t know, Harry says.
Green asks if Harry discussed with Sherborne a claim against News Group or claim against News Group or MGN?
Harry replies that he was looking for a way of dealing with the “abuse, intrusion, hate” towards him and his wife, to find another course of action rather than rely on the institution’s lawyer.
Harry has suggested that he believes evidence of hacking at Mirror was “destroyed”.
Where do you get this idea of destruction of evidence from the Mirror Group? Green asks.
My legal team, Harry says.
When did you first go to solicitors to seek advice about a possible claim about MGN? Green asks
I didn’t go to them, I bumped into Sherborne (his barrister) in France, Harry says
When?
It’s in my book, I believe 2018-ish, Harry replies.
You haven’t identified any particular message that you recall being left on a voicemail that made it’s way into a story, Green says.
I can’t remember specific voicemails, Harry replies.
Updated
Green turns to an article about which Harry complains that private information about his relationship with Chelsy Davy was revealed.
The article was about Harry’s “reported attempts” to win Chelsy Davy back, Green says.
Davy was at university at the time of the article. People close to her were disclosing information to the media, Green says.
“I highly doubt that,” Harry says.
Green turns to an article about Harry’s reported relationship with Caroline Flack, the late television presenter.
Harry says he was “livid” when he arrived at a location with Flack to discover photographers present.
The story was based on pictures taken by photographers at an agency called Ikon.
“Ikon pictures (the picture agency) have stalked me for a decade,” Harry says.
Ikon is obviously the source of the story, Green says.
This meeting was between myself, Caroline, who is no longer with us and my friend, Harry says.
Updated
Harry says he would have spoken to Jamie Lowther-Pinkteron about his concerns and the former royal aide was known to have been hacked.
Moving on to another article about details of Harry’s break-up with Chelsy Davy, Green asks if Harry was aware the story was broken by the News of the World the day before on its website.
The News of the World article was topped “A world exclusive” and appeared online, a lengthy article with a lot of detail.
“Also a suspicious article,” Harry says.
Green says the article describes how Chelsy Davy changed her Facebook status to ‘not in a relationship’.
“If that’s what she did,” Harry says. “I don’t believe that it was.”
But Green pushes Harry on the Mirror article – what about it is suspicious?
Harry says quotes “attributed to a friend”.
“There are expensive payments linked to the article,” Harry adds.
Green turns to another 2008 article, with the headline: “Harry’s soldier Taliban”.
Harry complains that the article contained private professional information about a ban on him returning to Afghanistan.
In his witness statement, Harry talks about when an Australian journalist revealed his location in Afghanistan resulting in his evacuation from Afghanistan.
The article quotes an MoD spokesperson.
“This wasn’t about your private life was it?” Green asks.
“No,” Harry replies.
There would be any number of people around you who knew your feelings about wanting to go back, Green says.
Harry says he didn’t speak to that many people about his feelings.
He adds it is “suspicious” that so much in the article is attributed to a “royal source”.
The Daily Mirror article has a line that says: “Harry’s contacts and text were password protected and not viewed”.
But this line featured in an article in the Telegraph previously, Green tells Harry.
The court session has resumed.
Andrew Green KC, for MGN, turns to an article with a photograph of Harry and Chelsy near Kensington High St.
“To know a photographer is there waiting is highly suspicious,” Harry says.
“This is a security issue,” Harry adds.
Updated
The court has risen for a short break.
Harry says that many quotes are attributed to friends but he adds: “At this point myself and Chelsy were not sharing anything with anyone.”
The Mirror article currently in question contained a detail that Harry only visited Davy once in Leeds – Green says this can be traced back to earlier media coverage.
Harry says he was not aware, but accepts that is correct.
Green suggests that the detail that Davy suggested a “trial separation” had featured in an earlier article by the Mail on Sunday – published the day before the Mirror article in question.
Green also turns to a Reuters report, which picks up on the Mail on Sunday article, which Green says reflects that one media outlet picks up what is said in another.
Harry adds that it also encourages other media outlets to push the story on.
Green turns to another article about Harry’s relationship with Chelsy Davy.
The article has a detail about the couple going on a “trial separation”
In his witness statement, Harry said voicemails would have been exchanged with Davy at the time.
Harry tells the court he is also aware that private investigators were used in connection to the article.
Harry says it was “hurtful” to read stories that appeared gleeful about his break up with Chelsy Davy.
“‘Hooray Harry’s Dumped’ was hurtful to say the least that such a private moment was turned into a bit of a laugh,” Harry says.
“The level of surveillance I was under was quite something,” Harry says.
Green, for the Mirror, suggests it was not celebrating Harry being dumped.
Updated
Harry earlier said: “I think the focus was understandably on the News of the World,” but Mr Green said the investigation was “broader”.
The duke replied: “I don’t think anyone even the police knew how to deal with it at first.
“At the time we didn’t know there was voice mail hacking, no one did.
“I believe at the time no one really knew how that information could have got out.
“The understanding from the Palace was that this was probably a one off.”
Green has turned to another article that suggests Harry was “celebrating” breaking up with Davy.
“Which seems a bit mean,” Harry says.
Harry tells the court he never spoke to anyone at the palace about his relationship with Chelsy Davy.
Green suggests a well-connected source within the palace was passing information to the Mirror about Harry’s relationship.
This post was edited to remove information that is being checked against court transcripts.
Updated
Harry has no evidence his phone was hacked, Mirror Group lawyer says
Harry tells the court he would feel “some injustice” if his claim against MGN is unsuccessful.
Green says Harry repeatedly makes reference to call data in his witness statement.
Green says there is not a single item of call data at any time between Harry’s phone and any Mirror Group journalist.
“Do you think the absence of call data suggests you were not hacked by any MGN journalist?” Green asks.
“Absolutely not,” Harry replies.
“If the court finds that you were not hacked by MGN would you be relieved or disappointed?” Green asks.
Harry says phone hacking has been done on an “industrial scale” across at least three of the papers – and says he would “feel some injustice” if his claim is not accepted.
“You want to have been phone hacked?” Green asks.
“Nobody wants to be phone hacked,” Harry replies.
Updated
Harry tells the court all articles published about him were distressing at the time, distressing to go through with his legal team and more distressing going through them again today in court.
Green turns to an article about Harry allegedly going to the strip club Spearmint Rhino and his then girlfriend Chelsy Davy being angered by this.
In his witness statement, Harry says he believes phones must have been hacked to inform the story.
Green turns to coverage by the News of the World, which led to the arrest and conviction of journalist Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire for the hacking of Harry’s phone, and phones around him.
Green is suggesting that the repercussions were so severe for Goodman and Mulcaire that it would effectively deter any other journalists – including those at Mirror Group titles – from attempting to hack Harry’s phone.
Harry challenged on what he thinks makes a 'public interest' story
Green calls Harry up on an earlier statement the royal made about stories that are not in the “public interest”.
“There’s a difference between public interest and what interests the public,” Harry says.
Green suggests that a story about a royal receiving preferential treatment at a military academy, or stories about a royal taking drugs, might be “public interest”.
Harry disagrees, says they are not, so Green asks him: “What constitutes a public interest story?”
Harry replies: “I’m not entirely sure, other than speculating.”
“A life threatening injury,” Harry continues. “I’m sure there are others.”
Updated
The second day of evidence continues where we left off yesterday – with MGN barrister Andrew Green KC taking Prince Harry through a sample of articles the duke has submitted to support his claim.
The article he turns to is a 2005 People article, headlined “Harry Carry”, it claimed the duke was being let off “gruelling” runs at Sandhurst military academy due to an injury.
Green says Clarence House, formerly residence for then Prince Charles, released a full statement providing an update about Harry’s knee injury. The statement also included a quote from Harry himself.
In his witness statement, Harry says he was not freely discussing his health or injuries.
“Is that an entirely accurate statement?” Green asks.
“Yes,” Harry replies, adding that he became mistrustful of the medical staff at Sandhurst.
Prince Harry has returned to the witness box, ready to resume giving evidence when court starts at 10.30am. Yesterday afternoon he was reminded by the judge not to discuss his evidence with anyone else - with Harry telling the court he would not even tell his children when he FaceTimed them that night.
Prince Harry has entered the witness box
Prince Harry has entered the witness box and will soon start his second day of evidence.
The media circus outside the high court has attracted hangers on - including former East 17 singer Brian Harvey, who says he was a victim of phone hacking by tabloid newspapers.
He loudly heckled as Prince Harry arrived at the Rolls Building in central London this morning.
So, turns out the protester who disrupted our live broadcast... Was Brian Harvey from E17!
— Joe Inwood (@BBCJoeInwood) June 7, 2023
No wonder I lost my train of thought! pic.twitter.com/YXJPck0kym
My colleague, media editor Jim Waterson, who is present in court today, has written this handy explainer about the key allegations made by the duke. It starts:
Prince Harry has a made an extensive series of allegations about the British media as part of his legal case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror.
These are the most important revelations and insights from the prince’s written evidence to the high court, in which he describes alleged illegal behaviour by tabloids – and the crushing mental impact of press intrusion.
Rishi Sunak’s government at ‘rock bottom’
Our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government, both of which I believe are at rock bottom.
“Democracy fails when your press fails to scrutinise and hold the government accountable, and instead choose to get into bed with them so they can ensure the status quo.”
‘Horrific personal attacks’ by Piers Morgan
The thought of [the former Daily Mirror editor] Piers Morgan and his band of journalists earwigging into my mother’s private and sensitive messages … makes me feel physically sick and even more determined to hold those responsible, including Mr Morgan, accountable for their vile and entirely unjustified behaviour.
“Unfortunately, as a consequence of me bringing my Mirror Group claim, both myself and my wife have been subjected to a barrage of horrific personal attacks and intimidation from Piers Morgan … presumably in retaliation and in the hope that I will back down, before being able to hold him properly accountable for his unlawful activity towards both me and my mother during his editorship.”
Read the full article here:
Prince Harry arrives at the high court in London
Prince Harry has arrived at the high court in central London, exiting a black Land Rover and heading straight inside with a quick wave to crowds as he goes.
He said good morning but did not answer reporters’ questions before walking into the building and passing security checks to enter the courtroom.
Updated
Harry’s box office appearance in the High Court has made the front pages of most of the British newspapers – including those he is suing in separate litigation.
A judge is currently deciding whether to allow this case against Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers to go to trial, with a verdict expected in the coming weeks. Harry alleges that journalists working for the Sun under the editorship hacked his phone and illegally used private investigators to dig up information for stories.
The Sun, then, might have chosen to bury or ignore the coverage of the Mirror Group litigation but instead opted for full guns blazing against the duke on its front page.
The headline “Me, Hewitt and that two faced shit Burrell” alludes to some of Harry’s evidence both spoken and in the written statement submitted to court. But the lede focuses on the criticism levelled at Harry by MGN’s barrister, Andrew Green KC.
THE SUN: Me, Hewitt…and that two-faces s**t Burrell #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/aQsAqEcutL
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 6, 2023
Likewise, a judge is currently deciding whether to allow a case against the owner of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers, to go to trial, with a verdict expected in the coming weeks. Harry - and a group of other claimants including Doreen Lawrence and Elton John - allege that journalists working for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday used private investigators to carry out illegal information gathering in the search for stories.
Again, the Daily Mail has chosen not to ignore Harry’s litigation against the MGN and has instead splashed on this comment piece by Jan Moir, with the scathing headline “He must have longed for the schmaltzy embrace of Oprah!”.
MAIL: He must have longed for the schmaltzy embrace of Oprah! #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/Yv26QmAXbv
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 6, 2023
The Telegraph, which is not subject to any litigation from Harry, does not splash on the coverage but the story does feature on its front page alongside a large picture of the Duke.
TELEGRAPH: Bombing of dam ‘a new low’ for Russia #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/1bZLYLZa4j
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 6, 2023
Another News Group Newspapers publication, The Times, splashes on comments made by Prince Harry in his written statement, in which he breaks with royal protocal and openly criticises the UK Government, suggesting their reputation globally is at “rock bottom”.
THE TIMES: Duke launches political attack #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/gpRs5IXNSA
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 6, 2023
And here at the Guardian we have a front page story focusing on the duke’s criticism of the tabloids and how their relentless pursuit of stories have damaged his life.
GUARDIAN: ‘Environmental disaster’; floods hit Ukraine as dam is destroyed #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/fQxRpYJ8tB
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 6, 2023
Prince Harry returns to court to give evidence in phone-hacking trial
Welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of phone hacking claims against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) at the High Court in London.
Today, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, will return to the witness box in the High Court to conclude his evidence in support of his claim against MGN.
While there was no smoking gun moment in Harry’s evidence yesterday, it was nonetheless a rare spectacle to see a senior royal cross-examined in court – for the first time since the 19th century.
The duke laid out the anguish he has suffered at the hands of a voracious tabloid press, questioned the methods of Mirror group journalists and hinted at the impact the relentless coverage has had on his family.
He is suing the publisher, claiming journalists at its titles – which also include the 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’s barrister, Andrew Green KC, reportedly referred to as a “beast” in court, took Harry meticulously one by one through the articles the duke has submitted to support his claim, challenging Harry’s assertion that the stories were based on or informed by illegal methods of information gathering, such as phone hacking.
Today, Green will continue to progress through the articles before Harry’s own barrister, David Sherborne, re-examines his client.
Updated
