Prince Harry wins major lawsuit against Mirror publisher: What is the phone hacking case?

Britain’s Prince Harry has won a phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). A British judge ruled in his favour in 15 of the the 33 sample articles he submitted in the case and ruled there was evidence of “widespread and habitual” use of phone hacking at the Mirror newspapers. The landmark verdict on Friday (15 December) was hailed by Prince Harry as a “great day for truth” and accountability. The High Court in London has awarded £140,600 (approximately Rs 1.4 crore) in damages to Prince Harry. The judgement holds significance for the Mirror newspapers – the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People – which have already spent an estimated £100m on damages and legal costs over previous hacking cases. What is phone hacking and what is Prince Harry’s case? Let’s take a closer look. What’s phone hacking? Britain’s tabloid press has been notorious for deploying illegal methods such as phone hacking to get scoops. Before the digital era, the highly competitive tabloid press in the United Kingdom went to great lengths to get information, including by using stealthy methods. One method was phone hacking — calling someone’s number and punching in 0000 or another default PIN number in the hope that would give access to their voice messages. Often, it did. [caption id=“attachment_13511132” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Prince Harry, second from right, escorted by security leaves the High Court after giving evidence in London, Tuesday, 6 June 2023. AP File Photo[/caption] The targets of the hacking included a wide range of celebrities, the royal family, politicians, athletes, friends and family of famous people, and even ordinary people who made headlines. London’s High Court Judge Timothy Fancourt ruled that phone hacking was “habitual” at Mirror newspapers dating as far back as 1998, and went on until at least 2011. What is Prince Harry’s case? King Charles’ younger son was amongst nearly 100 claimants, including sportspersons and actors, who had sued Mirror Group Newspapers over allegations of phone hacking and other illegal means for gathering information between 1991 and 2011. One of the headlines of articles on which Prince Harry won his claims read: “Harry is a Chelsy fan”. The story is about his relationship with Zimbabwean businesswoman Chelsy Davy. He also won his claim over the article “Harry’s date with Gladiators star”, which was about him meeting TV presenter Caroline Flack, reported BBC. During the questioning about his claims against the group’s newspapers in June, Prince Harry had blamed the “prying eyes of the tabloids” for his breakup with Davy. He had told the court that the consistent breach of his privacy had affected his relationships and he had faced “intrusion and hate”. “For my whole life, the press has misled me and covered up the wrongdoing,” he said. However, the Mirror Group’s lawyers had dismissed his allegations as “wildly overstated”. In his ruling, Justice Fancourt stated that Prince Harry was a victim of phone hacking to “a modest extent” and was subjected to other underhanded ways of gathering information. Lauding the verdict, Prince Harry said in a statement, “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”. “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”, BBC quoted his statement as saying. He also called on the UK authorities to “investigate bringing charges against the company and those who have broken the law”. The Metropolitan Police said it would “carefully consider the civil judgment handed down today (15 December) at the High Court. There is no ongoing investigation”, reported BBC. This is just one of the four cases Prince Harry is pursuing at the High Court. His legal battle also involves other newspaper groups, such as Associated Newspapers and News Group Newspapers. What does the judgement mean for MGN? In a partial win for Mirror Group Newspapers, the judge ruled against two of Harry’s co-claimants on the grounds that they had waited too long to take legal action. Mirror Group’s parent company, Reach PLC, said Friday that the judgment was expected to “reduce the number of live claims, and substantially limit and bar all or most future claims” for historical wrongdoing. The ruling could have severe ramifications for Sly Bailey, former chief executive of the Mirror Group’s parent company, and the firm’s ex-legal director, Paul Vickers. The judge said they both knew about the hacking and covered it up. It also piles pressure on broadcaster Piers Morgan, a former Daily Mirror editor who has always denied that he knew about phone hacking at the paper. The judge said there was “compelling evidence” that editors of all the Mirror newspapers knew phone hacking “was being used extensively and habitually.” [caption id=“attachment_13511142” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Former Mirror editor Piers Morgan speaks to the media at his home in west London, 15 December. AP[/caption] “I’ve never hacked a phone or told anybody else to hack a phone,” Morgan reiterated after Friday’s verdict. With inputs from Associated Press