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 which 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 substantial evidence suggesting Morgan’s knowledge of illegal phone hacking. Witnesses, including a past intern, provided accounts of overhearing conversations about voicemail tip-offs, mentioning celebrities like Kylie Minogue. Morgan, however, has maintained his stance of not being involved in hacking.
Prince Harry’s victory in court is a key moment in his ongoing battle against unethical journalism. His lawyer, David Sherborne, pointed out that editors, including Morgan, were clearly aware of the hacking activities. Evidence from royal author Omid Scobie supported the claim that Morgan had knowledge of voicemail interception.
The trial shed light on the extent of phone hacking at MGN, revealing that a significant number of stories about Harry’s private life were based on illegal information gathering.
This ruling brings attention to the issue of phone hacking in British tabloids, a long-standing concern in public and legal discourse. The findings indicate that such practices were common and known to top executives at MGN, even during the time of the Leveson Inquiry.
Morgan, who led the Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004, responded to the ruling by criticizing Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, accusing them of attacking the monarchy. This follows Harry’s claims of targeted journalism by the Mirror publisher.
This legal win for Prince Harry forms part of his larger legal engagements with British tabloids, highlighting his commitment to challenging unethical media practices and protecting personal privacy.
The court’s decision provides insights into the prevalence of illegal journalistic practices in the UK, underscoring the necessity for ethical reporting and the protection of privacy rights. It also sets a legal precedent for similar cases and furthers the discussion on the ethics of journalism and individual privacy.
The case has garnered significant attention, spotlighting issues around press ethics and the balance between journalistic freedom and privacy rights.
