Key findings in the Prince Harry hacking case

A judge has ruled that “extensive” phone hacking and unlawful information gathering took place at Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) from the mid-1990s until 2011.

Evidence of both illegal techniques were found in Prince Harry’s case, as well as Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell’s.

Follow latest reaction to Prince Harry hacking ruling

Le Vell’s former co-star, Hollyoaks actress Nikki Sanderson, and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse, were also found to have valid cases – but they were dismissed because they were filed six years too late.

Here are some of the court’s key findings:

Unlawful information gathering and phone hacking at Mirror Group in general between 1991 and 2011

• There was “some” unlawful activity” at MGN in 1995;
• But unlawful information gathering was “widespread” at all three papers – the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and Sunday People, from 1996 onwards;
• Phone hacking started in 1996 and “became widespread and habitual” from 1998;
• But nothing was proved on phone hacking at MGN between 1991 and 1994;
• Between 2006 and 2011, unlawful information gathering and phone hacking continued;
• Phone hacking “remained an important tool for the kind of journalism being practised” by all three papers between 2006 and 2011;
• This included when the Leveson Inquiry into press intrusion was ongoing;
• Phone hacking was “still extensive” between 2006 and 2011 but done “in a more controlled way… and not as habitually” as before August 2006;
• Unlawful information gathering involving private investigators reduced between 2006 and 2011 compared to before, but was still done throughout that period.

Prince Harry’s case

• Fifteen out of 33 articles the Duke of Sussex complained about were the product of hacking of his or his associates’ phones and unlawful information gathering;
• Prince Harry’s phone “was only hacked to a modest extent” from the end of 2003 to April 2009;
• Eighteen articles he complained about “did not stand up to careful analysis”;
• A “number” of invoices for private investigators provide evidence of unlawful activity in relation to the Duke of Sussex;
• Damages of £140,600 were awarded – not just for unlawful activity but for the “particular hurt and sense of outrage the Duke feels” because two directors “knew about the illegal activity and could have put a stop to it”, and instead they “turned a blind eye to what was going on and positively concealed it”;
• However, MGN “only played a small part in everything the Duke suffered” in relation to press intrusion and unlawful activity.

Michael Turner (also known as Michael Le Vell)

• Voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering was used to a “limited extent” in Michael Le Vell’s case;
• This was because “his personal life was not considered to be of great interest to Mirror Group readers”, in contrast with his Coronation Street co-star Sanderson;
• But this changed in 2011 when he was arrested;
• Therefore, four of the 27 articles he complained about were obtained through illegal means;
• He is awarded £31,650 in damages.

Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman’s cases dismissed

• As Sanderson brought her case on 7 December 2020, it is dismissed as out of time because the limitation period ended on 7 December 2014;
• Similarly, Wightman brought her case on 30 July 2021, so her case has been out of time since 30 July 2015;
• Regardless, nine out of 37 of the articles Sanderson complained about had evidence of unlawful activity;
• And one of Wightman’s articles and 15 of the private investigator invoices she complained about also met the threshold for unlawful activity.

Omid Scobie

• The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s unofficial biographer was a student journalist with the Daily Mirror’s showbiz team and the Sunday People during some of this period;
• He said he was “given a list of mobile phone numbers and a detailed verbal description of how to listen to voicemails… as if it were a standard newsgathering technique”;
• Scobie claimed that once Piers Morgan asked about a story about Kylie Minogue and James Gooding, which was later published on 11 May 2022 with the byline James Scott;
• He said Mr Morgan was told the team was confident about the veracity of the story because it was done via phone hacking;
• There is an invoice dated 7 May 2002 for Mr Scott for “extensive enquiries carried out on your behalf”;
• Minogue and Gooding’s phone numbers were also in Mr Scott’s palm pilot device;
• The judge ruled Scobie a “reliable witness” and said he accepts what he said about Mr Morgan’s involvement in the Minogue/Gooding story.

Piers Morgan

• Piers Morgan was the editor of the Daily Mirror from 1994 until he was sacked in 2004;
• Prince Harry’s legal team “tried to establish a close connection” between him and Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Trinity Mirror PLC from 1999 until May 2006, and Sly Baley, chief executive officer, who the judge found both knew about unlawful information gathering;
• But the judge found “little evidence” of a close relationship save from “occasional lunches”, a “formal reporting line between Mr Morgan and Ms Bailey” and “two appearances by Mr Morgan at board meetings in 2002 to address strategic issues”;
• During one of these lunches, Mirror Group political editor David Seymour was told by a City journalist colleague that Mr Morgan “taunted the CEO of BT plc” who was also there that his customers would have to “change their PIN from factory settings”, because journalists often intercepted by voicemails by taking advantage of people leaving their PIN as 0000 or 1234;
• Mr Seymour told the judge that Mr Morgan was an “extremely boastful person” who would have “really enjoyed saying to the chief executive of BT: aren’t we clever”;
• Mr Justice Fancourt said Mr Seymour was a “man of intelligence and integrity” and he “accepts his evidence without hesitation”;
• The judge also deemed Meghan and Harry biographer Omid Scobie as a “reliable witness” and accepted an account Mr Scobie gave that he overheard Mr Morgan being told a 2002 article about Kylie Minogue and model James Gooding was reliable as it was the product of phone hacking.

Read Entire Article