Phone hacking 'sowed mistrust between Harry and William'

The relationship between the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Sussex started to “erode” because of unlawful information gathering, it has been suggested in the High Court.

Prince Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, said “mistrust” between the brothers may have been sowed as far back as 2003 when Mirror Group Newspapers published a story about an alleged disagreement between them.

Mr Sherborne said the a story, published in December that year, centred on a reported dispute between the Princes over whether to meet former royal butler Paul Burrell, who they had publicly accused of betraying their mother.

According to the article in The People, the brothers had clashed midway through Harry’s year abroad, while a source had told the tabloid newspaper the men were at “loggerheads”.

“Even at this very early formative stage the seeds of discord between these two brothers are starting to be sown.

“Brothers can sometimes disagree but once it is made public in this way and their inside feelings revealed in the way that they are, trust begins to be eroded. One can see how the mistrust can set in from an early age, exactly because of this type of activity.”

The Duke is suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages over alleged unlawful information gathering.

06:52 PM

That's it until the morning

Monday’s hearing concluded shortly after 5pm, so that’s a wrap on our live updates until tomorrow.

We’ll be back in the morning for Prince Harry’s day giving evidence.

Until then, see here for our latest story: Prince Harry claims Piers Morgan’s Mirror hacked Princess Diana.

Scroll down below for the latest as it happened.

05:10 PM

Story from Dec 2003 highlighted

Mr Sherborne highlights a story published in Dec 2003 about an alleged disagreement between Wiliam and Harry about whether to meet Paul Burrell.

He said: “Even at this very early informative stage, the seeds of discord between these two brothers are starting to be sewn.

“Mistrust can set in from an early age because of this type of unlawful activity.”

04:41 PM

'Quite extraordinary'

Mr Green said that many of the stories involved information already in the public domain, some that was put out by the Royal household, some by the Duke himself and some obtained from confidential sources.

He said it was “quite extraordinary” that the judge had been asked to infer the stories had been obtained unlawfully.

He highlighted one article that had been broken by the News of the World.

The story, published in January 2002, alleged that Harry had been taking drugs. The only new information the Mirror had added was that the young Prince had not been back to the pub in question, Mr Green told the judge.

“Mr Sherborne said that you could infer that that additional information was obtained by UIG (unlawful information gathering),” he said.

“There was plainly no voice interception. There is no payment record so why should there be any inference of UIG. What UIG? By who?”

He said the additional information was almost certainly obtained by journalists.

“It is exactly the sort of information that journalists get hold of,” he said.

“You are invited to infer that it’s UIG. That absolutely doesn’t work.

“It’s become rather fantastical.”

04:31 PM

Duke of Sussex 'not told by police he was phone hacking victim'

Andrew Green KC later told the court that the Duke of Sussex was not told by police that he was the victim of phone hacking from MGN, despite many other high-profile people being contacted during their investigations.

He said: “The Metropolitan Police have never suggested to the Duke of Sussex that he has been the victim of phone hacking by anyone at MGN.”

The barrister said Scotland Yard had investigated the hacking of royal households.

He continued: “The Duke of Sussex was actually at the centre of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into phone hacking.”

“Despite that, no one at MGN was interviewed, let alone arrested and charged,” he added.

04:23 PM

'No call data whatsoever'

At the start of his opening, Andrew Green KC, for MGN, said that payment records used in the Duke’s claim “simply do not demonstrate unlawful conduct or knowledge thereof”.

The barrister also said that there was a lack of call data in Harry’s case, telling the court: “There is no call data whatsoever for the Duke of Sussex and scant call data for his associates.”

Mr Green later said the duke faced “a very difficult starting point for the claimant proving he was habitually hacked”.

04:05 PM

Diana allegation 'total speculation'

Mr Green said the claim MGN journalists hacked a phone belonging to Diana, Princess of Wales, was “total speculation without any evidential basis whatsoever.”

He said: “The letters to Michael Barrymore are not evidence of voicemail interception and there is no other evidence. Plainly no such finding can be made.”

04:04 PM

Mirror Group opens rebuttal of Harry's claim

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, has opened his rebuttal of Harry’s claim by stating that there was no evidence that the Duke’s phone was hacked even once by MGN journalists.

“The defendant’s position is that there is simply no evidence that the Duke of Sussex was ever hacked, certainly that he was ever hacked on a habitual basis,” he told the court.

“There is no evidence and certainly no sufficient evidence, that a mobile phone used or owned by the Duke of Sussex was hacked on one occasion between 1996 and 2011.”

Mr Green said that none of those who had admitted hacking had ever suggested that they had targeted the Duke.

“Not one person who has come forward to admit phone hacking or witnessed it says that the Duke was ever hacked by any of the defendants titles,” he said.

The barrister added that the Metropolitan Police had also never suggested to the Duke that he was the victim of hacking by anyone at MGN.

03:51 PM

Duke not brought to court by 'press vendetta'

Mr Sherborne concluded his opening by stating again how during 1996 and 2011, every aspect of the prince’s life was “invaded” by the use of unlawful methods.

“It is the use of these methods that has brought him here, not some vendetta against the press generally,” he said.

“He is here because although he regards himself as any other victim, whether high profile or not, because he drives sales.”

The barrister said that by bringing this claim, the Duke had been able to “focus the attention that comes with his position” on such activity.

“It is bringing others to account.”

03:18 PM

Lawyers clash over timekeeping

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, pointed out that Mr Sherborne has now exceeded the promised three hours for his opening, prompting another testy exchange with the judge about timekeeping.

Mr Sherborne said: “We want to take the whole day with openings.”

Mr Justice Fancourt replied: “You said you’d take three hours.”

Mirror journalist Anthony Harwood was slotted into the schedule in Harry’s absence and the judge said now that he had been alerted, he should take the stand.

“We really can’t keep having timetable chaos,” he said.

03:11 PM

Harry and ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy 'never felt on their own'

Many of the articles the Duke has complained about concern his former girlfriend, Chelsy Davy,

Mr Sherborne said that when Harry and Ms Davy were together “it was as if they never felt that they were on their own.”

He said the torrent of stories about their relationship “led ultimately” to Ms Davy deciding that royal life was not for her, which was incredibly upsetting for Harry at the time.

It also caused their circle of friends to become smaller, both losing friends unnecessarily, as well as bouts of depression for Harry.

02:46 PM

William and Harry 'discord' over Paul Burrell meeting, court hears

A story published in December 2003 about an alleged disagreement between William and Harry about whether to meet their mother’s former butler Paul Burrell has been highlighted by Mr Sherborne.

“Even at this very early formative stage the seeds of discord between these two brothers are starting to be sown,” he told the court.

“Brothers can sometimes disagree but once it is made public in this way and their inside feelings revealed in the way that they are, trust begins to be eroded.

“One can see how the mistrust can set in from an early age, exactly because of this type of activity.”

02:15 PM

Piers Morgan referred to Diana and Michael Barrymore rumours

Former Mirror editor Piers Morgan referred to hearing rumours about the meetings between Diana and Michael Barrymore in his book The Insider, Mr Sherborne told the High Court.

The barrister said the reason Mr Morgan had heard was because Mirror journalists would have heard “private messages”.

He also said a letter to Mr Barrymore from Diana in June 1997, just two months before her untimely death, “demonstrates the impact of these activities”.

Mr Sherborne said Diana wrote to Mr 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.”

02:07 PM

Diana was 'huge target' for MGN's newspapers

Mr 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.”

The barrister turned to letters exchanged between Diana and former television personality and entertainer Michael Barrymore.

He read out two letters from Diana to Mr 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. Mr 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.”

02:03 PM

Diana's letters with Michael Barrymore show she was hacked, High Court hears

Letters exchanged between Princess Diana and Michael Barrymore show she was hacked by Mirror journalists under the editorship of Piers Morgan, the High Court has heard.

David Sherborne, representing the Duke of Sussex, read out a letter in which Diana said she was “devastated” to hear the Mirror was telephoning her office to ask about “six meetings” between the pair.

“Nobody knew about our conversations/phone call. How deeply sorry I am [that] what I considered to be a private matter has become public property,” she writes.

Mr Sherborne argues that “plainly the Daily Mirror has been listening in to the voicemail messages” between the pair.

01:35 PM

Court breaks for lunch

Court has broken for lunch. More updates to follow after 2pm.

The highlights of this morning session include:

• Duke of Sussex accused of wasting time after missing first day of proceedings

• Judge admits he’s a “little surprised” by Duke’s absence

• Court hears it should be assumed some MGN stories were obtained unlawfully as reporters not in court to defend claims

12:54 PM

Duke's phone 'hacked on multiple occasions'

The Duke of Sussex’s phone “would have been hacked on multiple occasions”, his barrister has told the High Court.

David Sherborne claimed that his details appeared in the palm pilot of a journalist who was one of the “most prolific” phone hackers.

The barrister said Harry was “one of the most written about individuals” in MGN newspapers, with more than 1,000 articles disclosed to him for the 2007 to 2011 period covered by the Shobna Gulati case.

Mr Sherborne said admissions by MGN of unlawful gathering were made in a previous High Court trial involving the former Coronation Street actress..

He said those included admissions relating to articles written by a number of journalists who wrote articles about the Duke during the same-time period.

12:18 PM

Duke has never been safe from intrusion

Mr Sherborne said Prince Harry was subjected to such unlawful information gathering from when he was a young boy at school, through the death of his mother, Army training and into early adulthood.

“No time of his life where he was safe from these activities and the impact they caused, but no area either,” he said.

“The one place where he might escape some of the pressures of that was to make friendships.

“But nothing was sacrosanct or out of bounds and there was no protection from these unlawful information gathering methods.”

11:55 AM

MGN journalists not giving evidence

Mr Sherborne is pointing out that the Mirror Group Newspaper (MGN) journalists who wrote the 33 articles Prince Harry claims were obtained by unlawful means are not being called to give evidence.

He suggests that as they are not appearing to explain how they secured the story, the judge should conclude that “it is more likely than not” that the information was gathered illegally.

The judge asked Mr Sherborne if that should still be the inference even when the same story appeared in a different newspaper the previous day - and even if it did not include any new information.

“The evidence is that journalists would be expected to find some new angle or to further the story,” Mr Sherborne replied.

This is important as MGN argues that many of the stories were simply rewrites from articles printed in other newspapers.

11:24 AM

MGN's admission is 'plainly implausible'

Mr Sherborne said that during the seven years from 1999 until 2006, MGN admits just one instruction to a private investigator - in 2004.

He said it was a “startling” position, arguring that unlawful information gathering was “habitual and widespread” across all three MGN newspapers - the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and The People, at that time.

“When one considers that Prince Harry was one of the most written about individuals during this period - and we can see stories about him were some of the likely to drive sales - to suggest there was just once instance of unlawful info gathering is plainly implausible.”

11:17 AM

Duke's private life 'obviously drove sales'

Mr Sherborne is rattling through some of the 33 stories that form the basis of Harry’s claim.

They include the time he caught glandular fever, when a 17-year-old school boy, an argument with his brother, Prince William, and a double page spread dating back to his time doing Army training at Sandhurst.

“It’s clear that stories about Prince Harry’s private life drove sales,” the barrister told the court.

“It’s obvious. After all, articles were the ends, that’s what this is all about.

“These are the ends, we say, that justified the means for the defendant.”

11:09 AM

Judge 'surprised' by Harry's absence

Mr Justice Fancourt, the judge hearing the case, said he was “a little surprised” to hear that Harry was not in court.

Mr Sherborne admitted that he had stayed in California to celebrate his daughter Princess Lilibet’s birthday.

11:00 AM

Duke's absence branded 'extraordinary' by MGN lawyer

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, said it was “extraordinary” that Harry was not in court for the opening of his own case.

He told the judge that court time would be wasted

Mr Green, who will be cross-examining the Duke of Sussex on behalf of MGN, said he has “quite a lot to get through” with the Duke, and will need around one and a half days.

“I have to cross-examine him on 33 articles…and that cannot be done in one day. If I am to put to him even a small number of the public domain documents and in many cases explain the sources of the information…The documents are relevant to the question of damages,” he told the court.

10:53 AM

Duke 'obviously different' to other witnesses

Discussing timetable arrangements with the judge, Mr Sherborne said that Harry was “obviously in a different category” to other witnesses due to his travel and security arrangements.

The judge appears frustrated that Harry may not be in court today to take to the witness stand if opening statements are finished ahead of schedule, before the end of the day.

10:50 AM

Duke of Sussex flew overnight after celebrating Lilibet’s birthday

Mr Sherborne has told the judge that his opening, regarding Harry’s claim, will take around three hours.

As a result, the Duke of Sussex will attend court tomorrow to give evidence.

He told the court that he was attending his daughter, Princess Lilibet’s birthday, yesterday and flew overnight.

10:38 AM

Court session has started

The court is now in session and has begun with Prince Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, bringing up “housekeeping matters” with the judge, India McTaggart reports.

It marks the beginning of the fourth week of proceedings in the Duke’s case against the Mirror publisher.

10:12 AM

Media waits for Duke's arrival

Members of media are camped outside the High Court waiting for the Duke of Sussex to arrive.

The Duke is the first senior British royal to appear in the witness box since the 1890s.

He is expected to give evidence for his lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers on Tuesday although he may be called on Monday afternoon.

09:57 AM

Recap: Prince Harry blames phone hacking ‘paranoia’ for Chelsy Davy realising royal life ‘not for her’

Last month, the High Court heard how the Duke of Sussex claimed his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy decided “a royal life was not for her” because of illegal snooping by journalists from Mirror Group Newspapers.

Prince Harry, who dated the Zimbabwean on and off for six years, said her decision to end their relationship was “incredibly upsetting” for him at the time.

The Duke, who claims his phone was hacked by Mirror Group journalists or investigators paid by the company, said he suffered “huge bouts of depression and paranoia” because he felt “he could not trust anybody”.

To read more click here.

09:01 AM

Factbox: Royals at court

Prince Harry is expected to become the first senior British royal to appear in the witness box since the 1890s when he appears at the High Court for his lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers.

Here is a brief history of senior royals in court as reported by Reuters:

• Edward VII - The last time a senior British royal gave evidence in court involved Edward VII who, before he became king, was a witness in a slander trial in 1891 over a card game. He was previously in the witness box in 1870, testifying in a divorce case after he was falsely accused of being the lover of a British lawmaker’s wife.

• George V - Edward’s son George V was accused of bigamy by a republican newspaper in 1910 shortly after he became king. Though he did not give evidence, George provided a written statement to the court denying bigamy. The author of the article was sentenced to one year in prison for libel.

• Charles I - Charles I was put on trial for treason in 1649, after the end of the English Civil War. He refused to recognise the authority of the court to hear his prosecution, but was found guilty and sentenced to death.

• Princess Anne - The Princess Royal, the only daughter of the late Queen Elizabeth, pleaded guilty to speeding in 2001. She was fined 400 pounds and given five penalty points on her driving licence. The following year, Anne became the first British royal to be convicted of a criminal offence in 350 years when she pleaded guilty to failing to stop one of her dogs biting two children.

08:31 AM

Analysis: Prince Harry cannot win his war against the media

Prince Harry is due to give evidence this week in his court case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for unlawful information gathering.

In this episode of Royal Insight, Camilla Tominey explains how the Duke’s court cases are a double edged sword.

“If Harry thinks he has a claim for phone hacking and he wants to go all the way through the courts to win it, then fair play to him; having said that, even if he wins, he also loses,” she says.

08:24 AM

Unlawful information gathering claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)

Harry is one of a number of high-profile figures bringing damages claims against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and Sunday People.

His case, alongside those of former Coronation Street actress Nikki Sanderson, comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife Fiona Wightman and actor Michael Turner - known professionally as Michael Le Vell - are being considered as “test cases” at a trial being heard over six to seven weeks.

MGN is contesting the claims over allegations its journalists were linked to voicemail interception, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities.

Harry is due to enter the witness box this week as the trial focuses on his individual case.

08:24 AM

Unlawful information gathering allegations against ANL

Harry is one of seven high-profile people, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, bringing legal action against ANL over allegations it carried out or commissioned unlawful information gathering.

The “firmly” denied allegations against the publisher of the Daily Mail include the hiring of private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, the “blagging” of private records and the accessing and recording of private phone conversations.

At a preliminary hearing in March, ANL asked a judge to rule in its favour without a trial, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”.

A judgment from Mr Justice Nicklin is expected later this year.

08:24 AM

Allegations of unlawful information gathering at News Group Newspapers (NGN)

Harry and actor High Grant are suing NGN, publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World, over alleged unlawful information gathering.

The duke alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for the papers.

Harry’s lawyers have argued that NGN’s challenge to his claim is an attempt to go behind an alleged “secret agreement” between the royal family as an institution and the publisher, which the duke was informed of in 2012.

NGN, which denies any unlawful activity took place at The Sun, disputes that such an agreement was in place.

Mr Justice Fancourt will hold a further hearing in July to decide whether Harry’s pleaded case can be amended to include his secret agreement claims.

His judgment on Harry’s case is expected later this year.

08:23 AM

Libel claim over Mail on Sunday article on Home Office legal battle

Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a February 2022 Mail on Sunday article about his legal fight with the Home Office.

The story was published online and in the newspaper under the headline “Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret... then - just minutes after the story broke - his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute”.

The duke’s lawyers in his libel claim have said the articles “purported to reveal, in sensational terms” that information from court documents filed by the duke “contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK”.

ANL is contesting the claim, arguing the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause “serious harm” to Harry’s reputation.

A ruling from Mr Justice Nicklin is expected later this year.

08:23 AM

Second case against Home Office in relation to UK security

Earlier this month, a High Court judge rejected Harry’s bid to bring further legal action against the department over a Ravec decision that he should not be allowed to pay privately for his protective security.

The Home Office, which opposed Harry’s claim, said Ravec considered it was “not appropriate” for wealthy people to “buy” protective security, which might include armed officers, when it had decided that “the public interest does not warrant” someone receiving such protection on a publicly funded basis.

The duke’s legal team argued Ravec’s view, that allowing payment for protective security would be contrary to the public interest and undermine public confidence in the Metropolitan Police, could not be reconciled with rules which expressly permit charging for certain police services.

Mr Justice Chamberlain refused Harry permission to bring the second challenge on May 23.

08:23 AM

Challenge against the Home Office over UK security arrangements

In July last year, Harry secured a judge’s permission to pursue a judicial review against the Home Office over security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK.

The duke is challenging a February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) - which falls under the remit of the department - after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting.

Harry’s lawyers say the security arrangements set out by Ravec, and their application when he visited the UK in June 2021, were invalid due to “procedural unfairness” because he was not given an opportunity to make “informed representations beforehand”.

Defending the claim, the Home Office says Ravec was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that Harry’s security arrangements will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Justice Swift said part of Harry’s case could proceed, with a date for a full hearing yet to be set.

08:18 AM

Duke's six legal battles in the High Court

Prince Harry has been involved in six legal battles at the High Court in recent months after bringing claims against three major newspaper publishers over allegations of unlawful information gathering, as well as challenges against the Home Office in relation to his personal security.

Here is an overview of his current cases with a brief description to follow:

• Challenge against the Home Office over UK security arrangements

• Second case against Home Office in relation to UK security

• Libel claim over Mail on Sunday article on Home Office legal battle

• Allegations of unlawful information gathering at News Group Newspapers (NGN)

• Unlawful information gathering allegations against ANL

• Unlawful information gathering claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)

08:10 AM

Full list of articles

Here is the list of stories that will be examined as part of the Duke’s claims:

• “Diana so sad on Harry’s big day”. Daily Mirror. September 16 1996.

• “Princes take to the hills for gala”. Daily Mirror. July 17 2000.

• “3am - Harry’s time at the bar”. Daily Mirror. September 19 2000.

• “Snap... Harry breaks thumb like William; Exclusive”. Daily Mirror. November 11 2000.

• “Rugger off Harry”. Sunday Mirror. November 11 2000.

• “Harry took drugs” and “Cool it Harry”. Sunday Mirror. January 13 2002.

• “Harry’s cocaine ecstasy and GHB parties”. The Mirror. January 14 2002.

• “Harry’s sick with kissing disease”. Daily Mirror. March 29 2002.

• “No Eton trifles for Harry, 18”. September 16 2002.

• “Matured Harry is a godfather”. The People. April 20 2003.

• “Harry to lead cadet’s march”. Daily Mirror. April 29 2003.

• “Harry is ready to quit Oz”. Daily Mirror. September 27 2003.

• “Beach bum Harry”. Daily Mirror. December 16 2003.

• “Wills... Seeing Burrell is only way to stop him selling more Diana secrets. Harry no... Burrell’s a...”. The People. December 28 2003.

• “Harry is a Chelsy fan”. Daily Mirror. November 29 2004.

• “When Harry met Daddy... The biggest danger to wildlife in Africa”. Daily Mirror. December 13 2004.

• “Harry’s girl ‘to dump him”‘. Daily Mirror. January 15 2005.

• “Chelsy is not happy”. Daily Mirror. January 15 2005.

• “You did what!”. Sunday Mirror. February 6 2005.

• “Who dares Windsors”. Daily Mirror. March 4 2005.

• “Chelsy’s gap EIIR”. The People. April 24 2005.

• “Harry carry!”. The People. May 15 2005.

• “Chel shocked”. The People. April 9 2006.

• “Davy stated”. The People. September 16 2007.

• “Hooray Harry’s dumped”. Sunday Mirror. November 11 2007.

• “Down in the dumped”. Daily Mirror. November 12 2007.

• “Er, OK if I drop you off here?”. Sunday Mirror. December 2 2007.

• “Harry fear as mobile is swiped”. Daily Mirror. July 26 2008.

• “Soldier Harry’s Taliban”. The People. September 28 2008.

• “He just loves boozing & army she is fed up & is heading home”. Sunday Mirror. January 25 2009.

• “3am: What a way to Harry on”. Daily Mirror. March 26 2009.

• “Harry’s date with Gladiators star”. The People. April 19 2009.

• “Chelsy’s new fella”. The People. April 26 2009.

08:08 AM

33 MGN stories to be examined during trial

Harry alleges about 140 articles from 1996 to 2010, published by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) titles, used information obtained through unlawful means, such as phone hacking.

The stories cover the duke’s relationship with his family and ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, a few injuries and illnesses, his military service and allegations of drug use.

Some 33 articles, dated between 1996 and 2009, have been selected for examination during an ongoing trial of Harry’s contested claim against MGN.

MGN has told the trial in London that it denies that 28 out of the 33 articles involved unlawful information gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.

08:06 AM

Recap: Mirror publisher apologises to Duke

As the Duke of Sussex prepares to give evidence at the High Court over unlawful information gathering at Mirror Group Newspaper titles, we look back at what has happened so far.

On the first day of the trial, lawyers for MGN said the publisher “unreservedly apologises” to the duke for one instance of unlawful information gathering and that it accepts he was entitled to “appropriate compensation”.

Andrew Green KC 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.

“Otherwise, the specified allegations are denied, or in a few cases not admitted,” he added. Mr Green said there was a reference to a payment record for £75 in February 2004.