Prince Harry’s phone was hacked, but Piers Morgan denies all knowledge

Former Mirror editor Piers Morgan has hit back at hacking claims and accused the Duke of Sussex of attempting to ‘destroy the British monarchy’

Prince Harry has accused Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) of “vendetta journalism” after a High Court judge found that he was the victim of phone hacking and awarded him damages in his latest battle with the media.

Former editor Piers Morgan, who was named in the judgment, has since denied hacking phones and launched a blistering attack on the prince, accusing him of attempting to “destroy the British monarchy”.

In an extraordinary statement outside his home, the TalkTV host said: “As I’ve consistently said for many years now, I’ve never hacked a phone or told anyone else to and nobody has provided any actual evidence to prove that I did.”

This came after the judge accepted evidence by royal author Omid Scobie that Mr Morgan had been aware of voicemail interception, and had authorised its use in a story about Kylie Minogue.

The Duke of Sussex was one of four test cases selected to be heard after he sued MGN for obtaining information using unlawful means, such as private investigators or gaining information by deception.

Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that 15 out of 33 articles examined were the product of hacking and that the prince’s personal phone had been targeted between 2003 and 2009, before awarding him £140,600 for the distress caused.

At a short hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, it was ruled that “extensive” phone hacking took place at the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People, from 2006 to 2011.

The key revelations include:

• Unlawful information gathering had been “widespread” at the publications and had continued “even to some extent” during the Leveson inquiry into media standards
• Of the 51 private investigators used, 11 of those were used “very substantially” by the publisher to carry out “very extensive and habitual” unlawful activity, while a further 13 also engaged in a “significant amount”
• Mr Morgan said he had “zero knowledge” of hacking, and launched a scathing attack on Prince Harry, claiming he “wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him in his Californian-tanned face”
• MGN has apologised “unreservedly” while the duke has called for the Metropolitan Police to investigate.

The Duke of Sussex with his lawyer David Sherborne (Reuters)

While finding that 15 of the articles were a product of hacking his phone or those of his associates, Mr Justice Fancourt said this was to a “modest extent” and “carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper”.

He awarded damages for the “distress” caused by the articles, and the “particular hurt and sense of outrage” felt by the duke.

The prince became the first member of the royal family in 130 years to take to the witness stand throughout the seven-week trial, in which he accused the newspapers of hacking on an “industrial scale”.

Piers Morgan said he had ‘zero knowledge’ of phone hacking (PA)

His case was heard alongside similar claims brought by Coronation Street star Michael Turner (known professionally as Michael Le Vell), actress Nikki Sanderson and comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife, Fiona Wightman.

Each of the claimants had accused senior editors and executives at MGN of approving this behaviour, with Mr Morgan mentioned on several occasions during the trial.

In a significant part of his judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt referenced the evidence given by Mr Scobie who claimed to have witnessed Mr Morgan being informed of phone hacking while he was working as an intern on the entertainment desk. The matter involved singer Kylie Minogue and her then partner James Gooding.

“I found Mr Scobie to be a straightforward and reliable witness and I accept what he said about Mr Morgan’s involvement in the Minogue/Gooding story. No evidence was called by MGN to contradict it,” the judge said.

Prince Harry has been awarded £140,600 in damages for the distress caused by phone-hacking (AP)

While Harry claimed 140 stories that appeared in MGN papers were a result of phone hacking or other unlawful behaviour, the trial only considered 33 of these, which included articles about his sports injuries, drug-taking and his relationships with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.

In the first of three phone-hacking claims he is bringing against British newspaper groups, Harry said that he was left feeling paranoid and distrustful throughout his teenage years and twenties.

Speaking of a story in which a photograph was published of him meeting the late presenter Caroline Flack, he said: “The impact these kinds of stories had on my relationships cannot be underestimated. Even those I trusted the most, I ended up doubting.”

The duke has launched several legal battles since relocating to California with his wife Meghan Markle (Reuters)

A spokesperson for the Met Police said: “We will carefully consider the civil judgment handed down today at the High Court. There is no ongoing investigation.”

Taking to the stand over two days, Harry said he would “feel some injustice” if the judge concluded his phone was not hacked by Mirror group reporters.

MGN had contested the claims and denied that any of the articles complained about had resulted from phone hacking. While the publisher had made a limited number of admissions of unlawful activity in relation to the duke and apologised, it denied the majority of the claims.

Andrew Green KC, MGN’s barrister, admitted the company had hacked many other celebrities’ voicemails during the early 2000s, although he insisted the prince did not have a “single item” of evidence that he was targeted.

Harry accused the publisher of hacking his voicemails with former girlfriend Chelsy Davy (Getty)

However, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that it was “implausible” his phone had not been targeted, given that hacking and unlawful information gathering was widespread at the time.

His written judgment said: “The duke has been one of the most important storylines in town for much of his life, and remains so.

“The idea that MGN carefully eschewed in his case what had become a primary journalistic tool – which it otherwise used on a widespread and habitual basis – is unconvincing.”

Speaking on his behalf outside court, Prince Harry’s lawyer Mr Sherbourne said the “journey to justice can be a slow and painful one”, and said that board executives and editors such as Piers Morgan “clearly knew” of hacking.

Michael Turner, known professionally as Michael Le Vell, was also awarded damages (PA Wire)

He added that while “slaying dragons will get you burned”, he reaffirmed his “mission continues” in establishing an honest press.

Claims brought by Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman were dismissed by Mr Justice Fancourt because they were made too late, while Mr Turner was awarded a total of £31,650 in damages.

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.”