Prince Harry trial: What were the articles at the centre of the Duke of Sussex hacking trial?
by 0 
by 0 
At the centre of Prince Harry’s High Court battle with Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) were a selection of 33 articles dated between 1996 and 2009.
The stories, published in the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the People, covered the Duke of Sussex’s relationship with his family and ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, his military service, injuries and illnesses, and allegations of drug use.
Mr Justice Fancourt found that 15 out of the 33 articles were the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering.
Follow latest: Prince Harry v Mirror group
The judge said Harry’s phone was “hacked to a modest extent”, which was probably “carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper” and happened on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009.
Drugs allegations
The judge found articles relating to Harry’s alleged drug taking had likely been the product of unlawful information gathering.
“Harry took drugs” and “Cool it Harry” – Sunday Mirror on 13 January 2002
Harry said that whilst this article, which contained allegations he had smoked cannabis, was a follow-up to stories in the News of the World, there were invoices concerning his friend Guy Pelly and people connected to the story at the time.
MGN denied any unlawful information gathering and said that news agencies, a freelance journalist, and a source were paid for the articles.
“Harry’s cocaine ecstasy and GHB parties” – The Mirror on 14 January 2002
This front-page story claimed that some of the duke’s friends had taken “hard drugs” in front of him, including ecstasy, cocaine and GHB, reporting that the Prince of Wales – now the King – was “terrified”.
Harry said in his evidence “it is not clear to me where the defendant’s journalists could have possibly obtained these quotes from”. But MGN denied unlawful activity and said there is no evidence of phone hacking.
In relation to both stories, Mr Justice Fancourt said: “I find that it is very likely that unlawful methods were used, including voicemail interception (VMI), though I am not persuaded that this included the duke’s own phone.
“I am persuaded that VMI of some of the duke’s associates probably took place, though not of the duke himself.”
Harry’s relationship with Chelsy Davy
Many of the articles the judge sided with Harry on related to his relationship with Chelsy Davy, who he first met while she was a boarder at Stowe School in Buckinghamshire.
“Er, OK if I drop you off here?” – Sunday Mirror on 2 December 2007
This article claimed that a photo of Ms Davy leaving Kensington Palace was “proof” the duke had “patched things up” with her.
Harry questioned “what are the chances” that a photographer was there to capture the moment, adding that MGN made a “mind-boggling” amount of inquiries and payments. The publisher said there is no evidence of phone hacking and that the duke had “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in dropping Ms Davy off outside the palace gates.
The judge found “information about the whereabouts of Ms Davy and the arrangements for her to spend the night in Kensington Palace are likely to have been obtained by voicemail interception”.
“Harry is a Chelsy fan” – Daily Mirror on 29 November 2004
Harry said the author of a story showing a picture of Ms Davy, whom the duke had started dating, was a “prolific” user of private investigators who were known phone hackers, while MGN said the details came from a previous report in the Mail on Sunday, as well as two confidential sources.
Read more: Key findings in Prince Harry v Mirror Group Newspapers judgment
The judge said the story was “probably stood up by the Mirror by commissioning PIs to blag flight information, credit card details or phone billing data”, adding: “That unlawful activity was, I find, specifically instructed from London.”
Harry’s military career
“Soldier Harry’s Taliban” – The People on 28 September 2008
This article claimed Harry had been “banned from going back to war” in Afghanistan, despite his “desperation” to return.
He alleged details were obtained by “unlawful means” and that people with the information would not want to “jeopardise my career by speaking about it”, but the publisher said there is no evidence of phone hacking and the “public interest” in the story outweighed “any minimal privacy interest”.
Mr Justice Fancourt said: “There is likely to have been VMI or other unlawful information gathering (UIG) involved in reporting this story.”
The articles Harry lost
The judge said the other 18 articles didn’t stand up to careful analysis, noting “there was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time”.
Lazy journalism
Mr Justice Fancourt said some of the articles were just “lazy journalism”, such as:
“3am: What a way to Harry on” – Daily Mirror on 26 March 2009
This article claimed Harry “openly cavorted” with a new girlfriend at a Twickenham rugby match.
The duke said details in the article are incorrect and that payments to a private investigator show the woman was of interest to MGN, while the publisher said information came from a prior Press Association report.
The judge said: “This 3am article was just lazy journalism, “our spy” was an invention, and no UIG was involved in relation to the duke’s private information, which in any event could not include what happened in a hospitality box at a public event.”
Hopeless
Other claims were dismissed as “hopeless”, including:
“Snap… Harry breaks thumb like William; Exclusive” – Daily Mirror on 11 November 2000
An article reported that Harry had chipped a bone in his thumb and had a minor operation following an accident during a game of football.
The duke said he found the level of detail in the story as “surprising” and that he believed the palace had been approached for comment rather than being a source. However, MGN said the information was in the public domain and had been repeatedly reported the previous day.
Mr Justice Fancourt said “this claim is hopeless”, adding: “There is no evidence and no inherent likelihood that VMI or UIG were used in this case.”
“Harry is ready to quit Oz” – Daily Mirror on 27 September 2003
This page-seven story reported that the duke was considering leaving his gap year in Australia due to press intrusion.
Harry said evidence showed that MGN was paying to have him watched as the piece describes that he was inside “watching videos”, while the publisher said the information came from press statements by Clarence House, and also appeared in other outlets.
The judge said: “The claim in respect of this article is also hopeless.”
Pure speculation
“Rugger off Harry” – Sunday Mirror on 11 November 2000
This article described an injury the duke had suffered while playing polo which had resulted in him having to stop playing rugby.
Harry said the article is “brazen” and attributes some details to an unnamed royal source despite there being no comment from the palace, while MGN said the information came from a “confidential Eton source” with no evidence of unlawful information gathering.
“That is pure speculation,” the judge said of Harry’s claim. “I consider that it is more likely than not that there was no unlawful means used to obtain this information.”
