Mirror hacking: Prince Harry says Piers Morgan ‘knew perfectly well what was going on’
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
The Duke of Sussex reignited his war of words with Piers Morgan after accepting “substantial” damages to end his four-year legal battle with Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).
The High Court heard that the Duke, 39, had agreed a settlement with the tabloid publisher rather than pursue a second phone hacking trial.
In December, the Duke was awarded £140,600 in compensation after 15 of 33 articles were found to have been the product of phone hacking or unlawful information-gathering.
In his victory statement, he singled out Mr Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, for criticism. He also warned there would be another trial relating to a further 115 outstanding articles if he was not awarded appropriate damages.
But on Friday, David Sherborne, the Duke’s barrister, announced that MGN had agreed to pay “a substantial additional sum by way of damages” and all his client’s costs, which are likely to be significant. He said the publisher would make an interim payment of £400,000.
In a statement read outside the court, the Duke again turned the spotlight on Mr Morgan, insisting that he “knew perfectly well what was going on” regarding hacking.
He suggested that Mr Morgan’s “contempt” for the judge’s ruling only vindicated his decision to take the matter to court. The Duke also reiterated his call for a police inquiry and said that his “mission continues”.
He said: “After our victory in December, Mirror Group have finally conceded the rest of my claim, which would have consisted of another two trials, additional evidence and 115 more articles.
“We call again for the authorities to uphold the rule of law and to prove that no one is above it. That includes Mr Morgan, who as editor, knew perfectly well what was going on, as the judge held.
“Even his own employer realised it simply could not call him as a witness of truth at the trial. His contempt for the court’s ruling and his continued attacks ever since demonstrate why it was so important to obtain a clear and detailed judgment. “
The Metropolitan Police said it was still considering the December ruling.
Mr Morgan, who was not a witness at the trial, has denied wrongdoing. Asked for his response to the Duke’s latest claims, he said: “I think that invading the privacy of the Royal family is utterly reprehensible. And on that I share Prince Harry’s opinion. I just wish he’d stop doing it.”
In December, Mr Morgan accused the Duke of wanting to bring down the monarchy and said he “wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him around his California-tanned face”.
He called the King’s younger son “ruthless” and “greedy”, adding: “He demands accountability for the press but refuses to accept any for himself for smearing the Royal family, his own family, as a bunch of callous racists without producing a shred of proof to support those disgraceful claims.”
In October 2019, the Duke sued MGN over 148 articles he alleged had been obtained illegally. Giving evidence during the seven-week trial last year, he revealed that he was motivated by a desire to protect his wife, the Duchess of Sussex.
Mr Justice Fancourt found that phone hacking was “widespread and habitual” at the publisher’s three titles from 1998 and remained “extensive” from 2006 until 2011, “even to some extent during the Leveson Inquiry”.
He said two MGN directors, Sly Bailey, the chief executive, and Paul Vickers, the group legal director, knew about hacking but “turned a blind eye” and did not inform the board.
But he warned that the Duke’s “tendency to assume” that all stories written about him were obtained illegally was misplaced.
He also criticised the Duke for using his witness statement as a vehicle to advance “an argument against the vicissitudes of the press” rather than keep to factual evidence relating to his claim, noting that it “did not remotely comply” with professional guidelines.
The Duke’s claim was heard alongside those brought by Michael Turner, the Coronation Street actor known as Michael Le Vell, the actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse.
The claims brought by Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman were dismissed because they were made too late. Mr Turner was awarded £31,650 in damages after his case was “proved only to a limited extent”.
On Friday, Mr Fancourt ruled that Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman should pay MGN the costs of defending their individual claims. He said Mr Turner should pay costs incurred by the publisher in responding to his claim from March 5 2022, when a settlement offer was made.
The judge expressed concern about the way that such hacking claims were being pursued. He warned that pleadings and witness statements were being “maximised” with scant regard for reality, stating what was needed to advance the claim, rather than what could actually be recalled.
He also criticised the failure to attempt to resolve such claims without trial, warning there was no justification for claimants to “sit tight” rather than negotiate in the hope that something might eventually turn up to support their “more outlandish claims”.
Ms Sanderson’s claim was so “misleading and exaggerated” that the judge suggested the court lay down a marker for the consequences in preventing quick and fair resolution.
Meanwhile, MGN was ordered to pay the “generic” legal costs of all those currently involved in the litigation after the claimants successfully proved illegal conduct.
Other celebrities involved in the case include Cheryl Tweedy, the former Girls Aloud singer, the estate of the late singer George Michael, Ian Wright, the ex-footballer and now television presenter, and the actor Ricky Tomlinson.
The final costs figure is yet to be assessed, but the court heard that the group was seeking payment of around £1.9 million towards the legal costs of bringing those allegations to court.
Last month, it emerged that the Duke faced an estimated legal bill of £750,000 after abandoning a libel claim against the Mail on Sunday concerning an article about his demand for taxpayer-funded security.
Separately, he has been given permission to continue his hacking case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, which denies wrongdoing. His claim against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun and News of the World, is due to go to trial next year.
Responding to its settlement with the Duke, an MGN spokesman said: “We are pleased to have reached this agreement, which gives our business further clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago and for which we have apologised.”
