The Mirror Group Newspapers vehemently argues that Prince Harry is not a victim of phone hacking. They claim that his legal claim serves no purpose other than advancing his campaign to reform the British press.
Reluctantly, the publisher admits to unlawfully obtaining Harry's private information on one occasion at a nightclub and has offered an apology for it. However, they firmly believe that this isolated incident warrants no more than 500 pounds in damages.
They argue that the rest of Harry's case should be completely dismissed, placing the burden of proof squarely on the Duke himself.
This trial has been ongoing for seven long weeks, with both sides accumulating millions of pounds in legal costs. The newspaper group vehemently denies ever hacking Prince Harry, aged 38. As the case nears its conclusion, the Mirror's barrister, Casey Andrew Green, expresses sympathy for Harry due to the extraordinary media intrusion he has endured throughout his life. However, he asserts that being a victim of media intrusion does not prove that the Mirror's titles hacked him.
Mr. Green boldly claims that the true purpose of this litigation is not to seek compensation for unlawful activity but to fuel Prince Harry's campaign to reform the British press. He points out that some of the articles in question were published as far back as 30 years ago, branding Harry's case as wildly overstated and substantially baseless. He argues that much of the supposedly private information Harry complains about has already been extensively published elsewhere or shared by palace spokespeople.
The Mirror's barrister further highlights the complete absence of evidence indicating that their titles ever engaged in phone hacking against Prince Harry. He dismisses Harry's complaint as a broader frustration with media intrusion as a whole.
Even with testimony from other journalists turned whistleblowers who were convicted hackers themselves, there is no suggestion that Harry was specifically targeted for voicemail interception.
On the other side, David Sherborne, representing Prince Harry and the other claimants, presents what he believes to be hard evidence of widespread unlawful activities such as hacking, blagging, and deception at Mirror Group Newspapers between 1991 and 2011.
He claims that these illicit methods were the norm throughout the period, implicating the board of directors and legal department of MGN, who were allegedly aware of the widespread illegal information gathering.
Mr. Sherborne draws attention to the absence of key witnesses in the Mirror's defense, including former editor Piers Morgan, considering it a significant hole in their case. He urges the judge to draw adverse inferences from this extraordinary decision.
