In a surprising conclusion to well-publicized proceedings, Piers Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, adamantly denied involvement in phone hacking, following a High Court ruling that found him to be aware of such activities.
His statement came after Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, was awarded approximately $170,800 (£140,600) in damages against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for phone hacking.
The High Court heard evidence suggesting Morgan’s involvement in illegal phone hacking practices. This included testimonies from witnesses like a former intern, who recounted overhearing conversations about accessing voicemail tips, especially regarding celebrities such as Kylie Minogue. Despite these claims, Morgan has consistently denied any personal involvement in phone hacking.
Prince Harry’s successful legal challenge marks a pivotal moment in his fight against unethical journalism. His attorney, David Sherborne, highlighted that editors, including Morgan, were undoubtedly aware of the hacking. The court accepted testimony from royal author Omid Scobie indicating Morgan’s knowledge of voicemail interception.
The trial uncovered the extent of phone hacking at MGN. The court found that 15 out of 33 examined articles were based on unlawfully obtained information, including details about Prince Harry’s personal life.
This ruling also exposes the widespread issue of phone hacking in the British tabloid industry, a matter that has been under public and legal scrutiny. The findings reveal that such practices were known to senior MGN executives, even during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.
Morgan, who led the Daily Mirror between 1995 and 2004, used his response to criticize Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, accusing them of undermining the British monarchy. This follows Harry’s allegations of “vendetta journalism” against the Mirror publisher.
This legal victory for Prince Harry is part of his broader effort against British tabloids, underscoring his commitment to media accountability. It also highlights the challenges public figures face in protecting their privacy from tabloid intrusion.
The court’s decision offers insight into the prevalence of illegal practices in British journalism and emphasizes the importance of ethical reporting and privacy rights protection. This ruling sets a precedent for similar future cases and contributes to the ongoing discourse on press ethics and individual rights against invasive journalism.