A London court ruled in favor of Prince Harry on Friday in a lawsuit he brought against a British tabloid publisher. This was an important victory in the king's long-running battle with the British news media and a personal vindication of his crusade against press intrusion into his life.
The judge concluded there was sufficient evidence that Mirror Group Newspapers, which owns several publications, had engaged in unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, as part of its coverage of Harry and the other plaintiffs.
Judge Timothy Fancourt found that the information in 15 of 33 articles submitted by Harry's lawyers as evidence of phone hacking had been unlawfully collected by journalists and awarded the king 140,600 pounds, or about $180,000, in damages. He said Harry's personal phone appeared to have been attacked between 2004 and 2009.
The lawsuit, a civil matter, is one of several lawsuits filed by Harry, the Duke of Sussex and younger son of King Charles III, and his wife Meghan against the British tabloid news media over privacy rights.
His battle against the British media has often been in stark contrast to the royal family's traditionally reserved stance, and the decision comes amid a deepening division within the royal household over its handling of the press.
Prince Harry, whose memoir “Spare,” published this year, detailed his deep anger and outrage at the tabloid press' treatment of his late mother, Princess Diana, was the first senior member of the British royal family to take the stand since the 19th century.
The verdict seemed to confirm this decision.
In a statement read out by his lawyer after the verdict, Harry, 39, said: “I was told that killing dragons will result in burns, but given today's victory and the importance of doing what one “Free and honest decision is required.” Press, it is a worthwhile price.”
The ruling could also have far-reaching implications for Britain's tabloids, which are likely to face broader calls for accountability.
Harry had alleged that journalists from tabloids The Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The Sunday People targeted him and his inner circle by gaining access to his voicemail messages and other unlawful acts over the years used methods that caused him “considerable suffering.”
Most of the actions described in the case took place between 1991 and 2011, at a time when Harry was third in line to the British throne behind his father and older brother William.
During the trial, Harry gave evidence for over seven hours in a London courtroom in June. His lawyer submitted 147 newspaper articles as evidence, dozens of which were forensically examined during the hearing.
In his statement, Harry said that the negative stories about him and his family on the front pages of newspapers had made him distrust even his closest friends. In written evidence, he said editors and journalists had “blood on their hands” because of the methods they used and the lengths to which they went to report on him and his family. Harry's mother Diana died in a car accident in 1997 after being chased by photographers in Paris.
During his testimony, Harry discussed Mirror Group articles about his life, some of which were written during his primary school years and often revealed disturbing or damaging personal details.
One included details about breaking his thumb at school.
“Not only do I have no idea how they would know, but things like this cause paranoia in a young man,” Harry testified, suggesting that his doctor's phone may have been hacked to obtain the information .
Several of the stories focused on Harry's relationship with Chelsy Davy, a former girlfriend who he began dating after leaving school. The prince said the couple eventually found a tracking device on their car.
Crucially, Harry's cross-examination produced no concrete evidence of phone hacking. That became a key question for the judge, who had to decide whether a series of highly detailed stories about Harry's private life constituted sufficient evidence that the Mirror Group tabloids had used illegal methods to obtain information about him.
A Mirror Group lawyer, Andrew Green, had pressed the king for hard evidence that his journalists had hacked his phone, arguing that much of the information that Harry and his legal team said had been obtained unlawfully was actually from were available from other sources, including from press representatives associated with the royal family.
But ultimately, in a 386-page ruling, Judge Fancourt concluded that almost half of the articles submitted by Prince Harry's team contained enough evidence that could be linked to phone hacking.
Importantly, since this was a civil case, the public prosecutor did not have to confirm that a hacker attack had occurred beyond doubt, but only that there was sufficient evidence to show that it was likely.
There were four other plaintiffs in the case, and the judge concluded that they had proven that unlawful means were used to gather information which was then released by Mirror Group on behalf of all four plaintiffs.
In a statement, Mirror Group said it welcomed the ruling and said it “provides the company with the clarity it needs to move forward on the events that took place many years ago.”
“We apologize unreservedly for the historic misconduct, have accepted full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation,” the company said in a statement.
David Sherborne, the lead lawyer representing Prince Harry and the other plaintiffs in the case, called the verdict “affirmative and affirmative” in a statement he read on Harry's behalf outside the central London courtroom on Friday.
“This case is not just about hacking, it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behavior,” Mr. Sherborne said, adding that the news organization’s most senior staff “obviously knew about or were involved in these illegal activities.”
Harry added in his statement that he hoped the court findings would “serve as a warning to all media organizations” that have engaged in or are considering illegal information gathering.
In late July, a judge in Britain ruled that only part of another lawsuit Harry had filed against News Group Newspapers, owned by Rupert Murdoch, would go to trial next January.