Closing summary
Today’s proceedings in the high court are coming to a close. The day has focused upon the claims made by the Duke of Sussex. Here’s a summary of what happened today:
Prince Harry did not arrive in court in person – to the annoyance of the presiding judge.
The duke’s barrister, David Sherborne, told the court Harry had left Los Angeles the previous evening because he had been celebrating his daughter’s birthday.
Mr Justice Fancourt said he was “a little surprised” to hear the duke would not be attending court on Monday. The judge said he gave a direction earlier in the trial that witnesses should be available the day before their evidence was due to be heard in case the legal teams’ opening speeches ran short.
Sherborne outlined some of the details of Harry’s claim, including Mirror Group articles that were submitted as evidence of unlawful information gathering, such as phone hacking.
Harry was subjected to the interception of voicemails, the use of a large number of private investigators to obtain information about him and the various aspects of his personal life, as well as “blagging” billing data and other private information.
The claim covers three periods, Sherborne says, from 1996 to 1999, from 1999 to 2006, and then from 2007 to 2011.
Sherborne told the court Diana, Princess of Wales was a “huge target” for MGN’s newspapers, adding that certain unlawful activities in relation to her would have also affected Harry.
Under Piers Morgan’s leadership, Daily Mirror reporters allegedly hacked the phone of Diana, Princess of Wales, Sherborne told the court.
Andrew Green KC said there was no evidence that hacking of Harry’s phone took place. “Zilch, zero, nil, de nada, niente, nothing,” he said.
Thanks for reading.
Updated
The proceedings have concluded for the day – but will continue tomorrow with Prince Harry in the witness box.
It was always obvious that the security arrangements around the Duke of Sussex were unlike any one else in the country, Green says.
As a result, any journalist would know it was a huge risk to target Harry especially after the convictions of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman at the News of the World, he says.
There is no evidence that Harry was being hacked on a systemic basis, Green adds.
Mirror Group says no one who has admitted phone hacking has said Duke of Sussex was among victims, says its barrister
Andrew Green KC is now detailing the Mirror Group’s defence against Prince Harry’s claims.
There’s no evidence that hacking of Harry’s phone took place, Green says. “Zilch, zero, nil, de nada, niente, nothing.”
Not one person who has come forward to admit phone hacking or has witnessed it has ever said the Duke of Sussex was among the victims, Green says.
Dan Evans was the “designated hacker for the Mirror” in the early 00s, the peak of phone hacking, Green says. But Evans has never suggested he or anyone else attempted to hack the duke’s phone, he says.
Green is listing other journalists who have all admitted hacking but have never listed Harry as one of their victims.
Updated
The court has risen for a short break.
Sherborne is wrapping up his opening statement concerning Harry’s claim.
It is the use of these methods by a national newspaper group that has brought him here, not a wider vendetta against the press.
By bringing this claim he has been able to focus the attention that comes with his position on these activities and they have been carried out not just by journalists but they have been concealed by senior members of the board and the legal department. The impact this has had on him and others is something he describes graphically in his witness statement.
Updated
Sherborne said that in his witness statement, yet to be made public, Harry describes the “constant stream of stories” about his relationship with Davy.
The barrister said the duke refers to “how little chance this relationship was given because of this” and describes how it affected his relationships going forward.
Referring to articles from the time of Harry’s relationship with Davy, Sherborne said to Mr Justice Fancourt that he would notice “how young Prince Harry looks”.
“He is little more than a child, as was Ms Davy at the time,” the barrister continued. “As he explains, it was as if they never felt they were on their own, which placed a huge amount of strain on their relationship and … ultimately led Ms Davy to decide a royal life was not for her.”
He added: “It also caused their circle of friends to become smaller and smaller, meaning that relationships were lost entirely unnecessarily.”
Sherborne said that is something common to many alleged victims of unlawful information gathering.
He also said press intrusion led to Harry “suffering bouts of depression as a result”, which Sherborne said was “hardly surprising” and also something that other alleged victims of unlawful information gathering had described.
The barrister added: “Who could forgive him for being protective as he grew up for future relationships, seeing … what those around him would be subjected to.”
Updated
My colleague, media editor Jim Waterson, has written up this take on today’s hearing, focusing on claims that under Piers Morgan’s leadership, Daily Mirror reporters allegedly hacked the phone of Diana, Princess of Wales.
He writes:
The high court heard that Diana had regularly talked to Barrymore in the months before her death, at a time when they were two of the most famous people in Britain. The television presenter was “struggling with coming out as gay”, as well as dealing with an addiction to alcohol and drugs.
On Monday, a phone-hacking trial heard extracts from a letter in which Diana offered to support Barrymore, who was one of the nation’s leading television stars. In one letter, sent in early 1997, the princess provided her phone number and wrote: “Dear Michael. What joy it was to finally meet you tonight. I did want to emphasise that I’m here for you – whenever.
“It’s very easy to pop round and see you or please telephone now you have my number. You’re doing just fine and believe me, I know. So take great care and lots of love from Diana.”
Months later, Diana wrote again to say she was “devastated” that details of their supposedly secret meetings had been obtained by the Daily Mirror. She apologised to Barrymore for the leak, expressed her disgust with the tabloid press, and said she did not know how the news had come out, given “nobody knew about our conversations”. The court heard that Barrymore did not reply to this letter, highlighting the “isolation” caused by press intrusion.
David Sherborne, the barrister who is acting for Diana’s younger son, Prince Harry, in the trial against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), said the simple explanation was that journalists working for the Daily Mirror had hacked Diana’s voicemails.
The lawyer also suggested the Daily Mirror’s then editor, Piers Morgan, was disingenuous when he later wrote in his autobiography that he had “heard rumours” about a friendship between Diana and Barrymore.
Read the full article here:
The ups and downs and ins and outs of Harry’s relationship with Chelsy Davy were all revealed by the three Mirror titles, Sherborne says.
All the articles have the “tell tale” signs of unlawful information gathering, he says.
Sherborne reads the headline to an article about when the duke met Davy’s father: “When Harry Met Daddy – the biggest danger to wildlife in Africa”.
He says the article was written by journalists with links to unlawful information gathering.
Updated
A key part of Harry’s legal case against Mirror Group Newspapers relies on a precedent set by a court case involving a chimney sweep that took place 300 years ago.
The 1722 trial of Armory v Delamirie involved an individual who found a metal piece of jewellery set with gems while cleaning a fireplace. When the chimney sweep had the item valued, a jeweller surreptitiously removed the gems – before handing back a number of empty metal sockets.
The chimney sweep sued and a judge ruled that in the absence of the original gems, it must be assumed that the jewels were of the highest possible value that could fit the empty metal sockets.
The legal ruling set a precedent that if the court can tell that evidence is missing, then the assumption should be that what is missing is of the highest possible value that would fit the hole.
David Sherborne, Prince Harry’s barrister, told the high court on Monday that the Mirror’s mass-deletion of emails potentially relating to Harry’s case was damning. He evoked the chimney sweep’s case from 1722, arguing the judge should interpret the deletion of potential evidence as “inferences of unlawful activity”.
Sherborne evoked the same case in last year’s Wagatha Christie libel trial between Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy. In that trial, he successfully argued that the loss of a mobile phone in the North Sea containing WhatsApp messages should be interpreted as an attempt to hide important evidence.
Updated
Princess Diana was 'devastated' Daily Mirror had called her office about meeting Michael Barrymore, says barrister
As Sherborne continues outlining some of the details of articles that are being submitted to back Harry’s claims, it’s worth revisiting his comments earlier about alleged targeting of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Sherborne said Diana was a “huge target” for MGN’s newspapers, adding that certain unlawful activities in relation to her would have also affected Harry.
He said: “It is part of our case that the interception of her messages would necessarily have involved obtaining information about the young prince.”
Sherborne then turned to letters exchanged between Diana and former television personality and entertainer Michael Barrymore.
He read out two letters from Diana to Barrymore, which referred to meetings between the pair, and in one of the letters Diana referred to being “devastated” to learn the “Daily Mirror” had called her office about him and their meetings.
In the letter, Diana said she had not told anyone about the meetings. Sherborne said: “We say it is plainly that the Daily Mirror has been listening to the voicemail messages and that is how they knew of the secret and highly sensitive meetings between Princess Diana and poor Mr Barrymore.”
The barrister added that Barrymore was “struggling” at the time because it had been made public that he was gay, he was in the process of an “acrimonious” divorce and was being treated for alcohol and drug addiction.
Sherborne said former Mirror editor Piers Morgan referred to hearing rumours about the meetings between Diana and Michael Barrymore in his book The Insider.
The barrister said the reason Mr Morgan had heard was because Mirror journalists would have heard “private messages”.
He also said a letter to Barrymore from Diana in June 1997, just two months before her untimely death, “demonstrates the impact of these activities”.
Sherborne said Diana wrote to Barrymore saying she had not heard from him and hoped his silence was “good news”, adding: “I have had a nightmare time with the tabloids.”
The barrister added: “Mr Barrymore is so frightened off that he does not contact Princess Diana and this is the isolation that this activity causes.”
Updated
The court has resumed after a lunch break.
There was an agreement that Princes William and Harry would be left alone after their mother’s death, Sherborne says.
But this did not happen, he says, presenting an article “Prince Harry forced to stop playing rugby due to polo injury”.
Sherborne says the article has all the “tell tale signs” of unlawful information gathering.
Updated
Sherborne refers to another article from 2000 concerning Harry’s 16th birthday, which he argues is another occasion of unlawful information gathering.
“It’s a small story,” Sherborne says, about Harry’s birthday celebrations.
Harry turned up “unannounced” at the pub but a photographer knew he would be there, Sherborne says.
The column – 3am – which this story appeared in had a history of phone hacking. The journalists involved have been involved in admitted unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says.
Princess Diana's phone hacked by Piers Morgan's Daily Mirror, documents about Michael Barrymore reveal
Articles about Harry’s personal distress have “tell tale signs” of unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says, given that Princess Diana was a “huge target” of the Daily Mirror. Evidence of interception of Diana’s phone when Piers Morgan was editor are in documents related to Michael Barrymore, the light entertainer.
Journalists would have learned details of Harry’s life in Diana’s voicemails, Sherborne says.
Updated
Sherborne is outlining some more detail about Harry’s claim.
In January 1996, Harry was just 11 years old. It was a time of high interest from the newspapers into the royal family, around the time of then Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s divorce.
The prince was still at school although that “offered little protection” from the Mirror’s unlawful activities, Sherborne says.
He presents a note showing the instruction of the notorious Media Investigations – a trade name for a firm run by private investigator Jonathan Rees.
The payment was made on 3 January 1996 in relation to “Tiggy” – this was Tiggy Legge-Bourke, who was Harry’s nanny and later guardian, Sherborne says.
Updated
The journalists who wrote the articles presented as part of Harry’s claim were all frequent users of the unlawful methods of information gathering, and therefore were highly likely to use the same methods in respect to stories about Harry, Sherborne argues.
The hearing has resumed.
Sherborne says Harry was subjected to unlawful activities from when he was a young boy at school, past the tragic death of his mother, through Sandhurst army training and then young adulthood.
There was no area of Harry’s life that wasn’t touched by press interest, including relationships he formed.
“Nothing was sacrosanct and out of bounds, there was no protection from these unlawful methods,” Sherborne says.
Prince Harry's no-show – analysis
Prince Harry’s no-show at the high court has caused a headache for his legal team, who were left explaining that he had chosen to stay in Los Angeles to attend his daughter’s second birthday party, writes media editor Jim Waterson from the high court.
Harry had originally been scheduled to give evidence in his phone-hacking trial against Mirror Group Newspapers on Tuesday. But the judge had asked for him to be in court ready to give evidence on Monday, in case lawyers finished their opening legal arguments earlier than expected.
When the Mirror’s legal team indicated they would speed through their opening arguments, Harry’s team were forced to accept that their client would not be ready in time.
David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister, told the court that his client only left California on Sunday night after prioritising his toddler’s party. As a result the prince would not be available to give evidence in London on Monday afternoon.
Dozens of photographers, television camera crews, and reporters had gathered outside the Rolls Building to capture the arrival of the prince, only to learn he was still dealing with jet lag.
The judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, was visibly irritated by the prince’s failure to be ready to give evidence – although in diplomatic legal language he simply said he was “a little surprised” by the prince’s absence. Given the case is being heard without a jury, it is considered unwise to anger to annoy the one person who will decide the outcome of the case.
Updated
Prince Harry’s legal war on the British media has so many different fronts that it can be hard to keep track of what is going on, writes Jim Waterson.
Every national newspaper – with the exception of the Telegraph, Guardian, and Financial Times – is owned by a company currently being sued by the prince.
In addition to an ongoing libel case against the Mail on Sunday, Harry currently has three entirely separate claims ongoing relating to phone hacking and illegal information gathering.
The cases against the newspaper publishers are:
1) Mirror Group Newspapers: This is the case that is currently being tried at the high court in London. Harry alleges that journalists working for the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and People both hacked his phone and illegally used private investigators to dig up information for stories.
The Mirror says many of the stories were of a “breath-taking level of triviality”. Harry missed a legal deadline to bring the case and that many of the stories about the prince were not obtained illegally but came from legal sources – including his father’s press officers.
2) News Group Newspapers: A judge is currently deciding whether to allow this case against Rupert Murdoch’s media company 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.
It is already accepted that both Harry had his phone hacked by journalists working for Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World. But News Group Newspapers insists Harry missed a legal deadline to bring the case against the Sun.
3) Associated Newspapers: A judge is currently deciding whether to allow this case 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.
The publisher insists the allegations are “preposterous smears” and the underlying evidence is disputed.
The court is taking a short break.
There were also those around Prince Harry whose details appeared in PalmPilots (digital devices which were precursors to modern day tablets) owned by Mirror reporters, Sherborne says.
Contact details for people like the now King Charles’s private secretary and Harry’s close friend at the time, Guy Pelly, appeared on the PalmPilots of Mirror journalists who have been identified in earlier legal cases finding unlawful information gathering at the Mirror Group.
Sherborne is listing a number of articles that were previously found to have involved unlawful information gathering, such as phone hacking, in earlier legal cases.
Prince Harry was subject to voicemail interception and use of private investigators, says barrister
Turning to the “means”, Sherborne says Harry was subjected to the interception of voicemails, the use of a large number of private investigators to obtain information about him and the various aspects of his personal life, as well as “blagging” billing data and other private information.
The claim covers three periods, Sherborne says, from 1996 to 1999, from 1999 to 2006, and then from 2007 to 2011.
The use of phone hacking was widespread during those years but despite that the newspaper admits just one instruction of unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says.
There are no other admissions of unlawful activity, Sherborne says.
Andrew Green KC, for the publisher, previously said it was admitted that a private investigator was instructed, by an MGN journalist at The People, to unlawfully gather information about Harry’s activities at the Chinawhite nightclub one night in February 2004.
“That we say is a startling enough position when one considers the findings… that it was habitual and widespread across all three newspapers,” he says.
Updated
Sherborne says that “even what went on in Sandhurst when he was doing his army training” made it to the Mirror newspapers.
“It’s clear stories about Harry’s private life drove sales,” Sherborne says.
“Articles were the ends… these were the ends that justified the means for the defendant (Mirror Group),” Sherborne says.
Sherborne is going through some of the articles by way of example.
A front page Mirror story about Prince Harry catching glandular fever, the so-called “kissing disease”, at the age of 17 is presented.
“It drives circulation,” Sherborne says.
Another article about a “private argument” between Harry and his brother is presented, followed by a front page article headlined “Harry’s girl to dump him” on Mirror.
“Every facet of his life, even the ups and downs of his first serious relationship with Miss Davy (Chelsea Davy), is splashed across the front of the papers,” Sherborne says.
David Sherborne, Prince Harry’s barrister, is now outlining the duke’s claim.
There are at least 30 private investigators used by Mirror Group to obtain information about Harry, Sherborne says.
There are 147 newspaper articles submitted to back up his claim, which Sherborne says is a “fraction” of the volume of coverage published about Harry by the Mirror titles.
The lawyer representing Mirror Group Newspapers has also expressed frustration that he we will not have enough time to cross-examine Harry.
Andrew Green KC says he needs at least one and half days to cross examine Harry on all aspects of the claim.
“That can not be done in one day,” he says.
Judge expresses frustration that Harry will not give evidence in person today
The honourable Mr Justice Fancourt, who is presiding over the case, has expressed frustration that Prince Harry will not be giving evidence in person today.
The Duke’s barrister, David Sherborne, that Harry will attend tomorrow to give evidence and suggested he was delayed due to his daughter’s birthday party. Princess Lilibet of Sussex turned two yesterday.
“The Duke of Sussex is attending tomorrow to give evidence,” Sherborne said. “He flew yesterday evening from Los Angeles where he attended his daughter’s birthday.”
Mr Justice Fancourt said he was “a little surprised” to hear the duke would not be attending court on Monday.
The judge said he gave a direction earlier in the trial that witnesses should be available the day before their evidence was due to be heard in case the legal teams’ opening speeches ran short.
Updated
Opening summary
Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of phone-hacking claims against Mirror Group Newspapers at the High Court in London.
Today we’re going to hear claims from the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, who is at some point – most likely tomorrow – to give evidence in person, becoming the first senior royal to be cross-examined in court since the 19th century.
Harry will allege that journalists at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People used illegal methods including phone hacking to obtain stories about him.
Mirror Group Newspapers will try to cast doubt on Harry’s evidence, his reliability and why he waited so long to bring the case.
We understand Harry’s written witness statement will be read to the court today and scrutinised by the parties involved.
As proceedings begin, get up to speed with this state of play by our media editor Jim Waterson:
