We're closing our coverage now. We're expecting the court will hear from the barrister for Mirror Group Newspapers tomorrow. And if you're wondering about Prince Harry, he is expected to give evidence in June.

You can read our news report on today's hearing here - and an explainer about the trial by our home and legal affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani here.

Today's coverage was brought to you by Alex Kleiderman, Jamie Whitehead, Adam Durbin and Heather Sharp in the newsroom, with Jemma Crew, Dominic Casciani and Katie Razzall reporting from the High Court.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

First off, that the amount of evidence in this case is going to be mind-boggling. If someone can quickly point me in the direction of an AI legal document reader bot I'd be grateful (PR agencies: this is a joke).

Seriously, what we can see here is a two-pronged attack from Prince Harry's legal battalion. First off, they're wanting to prove that there was a pattern of hacking, illegal intrusion not just against him but many, many others - and that editors, lawyers and executives at the Mirror Group knew.

This will depend on key partially-documented incidents like the Prince Michael of Kent allegation (see our earlier posts) and also inviting the judge to draw inferences.

Secondly, the disclosure this afternoon of the 33 critical articles at the heart of his case reveals that he is prepared to argue with the newspaper group over stories that it insists were already in the public domain or obtainable by lawful means.

This means every single day is going to be a grinding legal battle - tiny details pored over and pulled apart. I don't expect a single one of Prince Harry's witnesses to be given an easy day in court. It is going to be gruelling.

Today's court proceedings have now finished, but here's a recap of what's been happening:

We've been following the second day of the damages claim by Prince Harry and three celebrities against Mirror Group Newspapers for phone hacking and other unlawful intrusions.

• Barrister David Sherborne for the claimants told the court “widespread, habitual and unlawful” activities were “authorised at the highest level” at MGN
• Sherborne described how voicemails were accessed, saying landlines could be intercepted with the help of private investigators

• He said senior figures in the Mirror Group at the time - including editors Piers Morgan, Neil Wallis, Tina Weaver, Mark Thomas, Richard Wallace and Bridget Rowe - authorised unlawful obtaining of private information - he says Morgan was "right at the heart of this in many ways"
• Sherborne detailed a story published by the Daily Mirror - with Morgan as editor - about Prince Michael of Kent's finances, after which MGN apologised and settled a legal claim
• The court released documents listing 33 newspaper articles at the heart of Prince Harry's claim for damages, also detailing MGN's defence relating to each

As we have been reporting, MGN denies all allegations of phone-hacking being made by the defendants in the High Court case - but it has previously admitted that the practice did take place. Morgan has told the BBC that he has never hacked a phone and no phone hacking "that I'm aware of" took place during his editorship of the Mirror between 1995 and 2004.

The second day of the trial is now over, stay with us as we go over today's key developments.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

Sherborne now talks about a 2001 Daily Mirror story about actress Amanda Holden and her then husband Les Dennis, the comedian.

He says they were a high profile couple who had been married for several years.

He references a Daily Mirror article from March 2001 - “Amanda’s fury over her friend’s ‘fondness’ for Les” - which he says in legal documents was written by “prolific phone hacker” James Scott.

Scott and the paper paid the private investigator firm TDI more than £1,000 in the period before or shortly after the article’s publication, Sherborne says in the documents.

Sherborne tells the court it is “quite clear” the information for the story was obtained by voicemail interception.

After lawyers for the couple wrote to the-then editor Piers Morgan complaining, MGN made no attempt to defend the claim, instead publishing an apology and paying their legal costs, the documents show.

Sherborne argues this is a similar pattern to that with the story about Prince Michael of Kent - that the newspaper is sufficiently confident to publish, but when challenged has to “back down” because “they realise they can’t possibly defend their source because it’s illegal”.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

We have now seen for the first time a list of the 33 stories at the heart of Prince Harry's claim for damages against Mirror Group Newspapers. He is relying on them to prove the allegations phone hacking and other unlawful activity was used against him. Here are just some of them:

• The earliest is: "DIANA SO SAD ON HARRY'S BIG DAY", published in the Daily Mirror on 16 September 1996. MGN says this story concerning the late Princess of Wales' divorce from King Charles III was not private information - she had talked about her children on BBC Panorama
• "SNAP... HARRY BREAKS THUMB LIKE WILLIAM; EXCLUSIVE". MGN says that story from November 2000 had been confirmed by the Palace the day before
• "RUGGER OFF HARRY", reported the Sunday Mirror in November 2001 about an injury the young prince suffered on the playing fields of Eton. MGN says its story came from a "confidential Eton source" and there was no evidence of voicemail interception
• "HARRY TOOK DRUGS" and "COOL IT HARRY" appeared in the Sunday Mirror in January 2002. MGN denies phone hacking - it says the story first ran in the News of the World. It also says a member of the Royal Family has no reasonable expectation of privacy if they were taking drugs.

Image source, Prince Harry

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

The court has heard a lot today about the Daily Mirror's 1999 story detailing the financial circumstances of Prince Michael of Kent, the late Queen's cousin.

But why is that relevant to Prince Harry's claim for damages?

Lawyers for the Duke of Sussex do not need to prove that some journalists had a history of generally breaking the law - that has been accepted since 2014.

But they do need to prove that editors and executives knew what was going on. This is a key part of Prince Harry's claim - that the rot went all the way to the top.

So his lawyers say the well-documented Prince Michael episode - including then-editor Piers Morgan's involvement and the Mirror's eventual apology - is surely evidence of how top people at the paper, including lawyers, must have known that blaggers were being used regularly to illegally source stories. MGN denies the apology and settlement to the Prince was an admission of illegal wrongdoing.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

The court has been hearing more on the Mirror's 1999 story about Prince Michael of Kent's finances.

Sherborne said it prompted a legal complaint from Prince Michael, with a letter from his legal representatives stating: “What is clear is that your newspaper has obtained information in a manner which is not only in breach of confidence but which may well also be in breach of the criminal law,” court documents show.

In a letter in reply, the-then Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, said any suggestion the newspaper or its employers may have breached the law is a “poor and thinly disguised threat that I will not dignify with comment”.

Prince Michael’s lawyers later told MGN they had deduced that a "blagger" had called the bank and, posing as the royal’s accountant, obtained confidential information.

MGN eventually settled the claim and published an apology to Prince Michael - and paid his legal costs too. said the claimants' barrister.

“It’s inconceivable, given the way this progressed, that the legal department and Mr Morgan were not well aware of the source of the story, and that it came from illegally obtained information," Sherborne tells the court.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

Lawyer David Sherborne for the claimants is getting into the detail around a Daily Mirror front page story in 1999 - while Piers Morgan was editor of the paper - which revealed confidential details of Prince Michael of Kent’s finances, including that he was in debt to a bank.

The barrister has alleged the story about the late Queen's cousin was “obtained illegally” using private investigator Jonathan Rees and his company, Southern Investigations.

In written submissions, he said private information had been obtained from a bank by a “known blagger” called John Gunning.

“This is clearly private information that cannot possibly have been obtained lawfully,” he tells the court.

The hearing has resumed after the break for lunch. Stay with us as we bring you updates from court.

Image source, PA Media

Just joining us or need a recap? We're following day two of a trial at the High Court in London over alleged unlawful information gathering by journalists employed by the publisher of the Daily Mirror.

Prince Harry and three celebrity claimants claim Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) was involved in phone hacking and securing information through deception.

The court is breaking for lunch just now, but let’s quickly recap what’s happened this morning.

• Barrister David Sherborne told the court one of the most “serious and troubling” features of the case is the extent to which “widespread, habitual and unlawful” activities were “authorised at the highest level” at MGN
• Sherborne described how voicemails were accessed, saying landlines could be intercepted with the help of private investigators
• He said MGN paid private investigators £9.7m between 1996 and 2011 to illegally intrude into the lives of the claimants - though this is something MGN disputes
• Sherbourne also said senior figures at the Mirror Group - including Piers Morgan - "authorised" unlawful obtaining of private information
• He stressed that this case went "higher than journalists", adding that if senior figures knew what was going on, this aggravates potential damages for claimants

As we have been reporting, MGN denies all allegations of phone-hacking being made by the defendants in the High Court case - but it has previously admitted that the practice did take place.

Court will be resuming at 14:00 BST, stay with us as we bring you updates throughout the afternoon.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) denies all allegations of phone hacking being made by the defendants in the High Court case - but it has previously admitted that the practice had taken place.

In 2015, following allegations made by former Coronation Street actress Shobna Gulati, MGN said journalists had regularly used unlawful techniques and paid investigators to obtain private information. It issued a public apology.

MGN settled hundreds of claims - the 2015 case saw it pay out £1.25m in damages to eight victims. The company has set aside £28m to deal with hacking allegations.

However, MGN insists the blame cannot be pinned on executives because it says the unlawful activity was deliberately concealed by the journalists.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

The hearing has broken for lunch. We will bring you more updates from the court from 14:00.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

David Sherborne for the claimants says MGN paid private investigators £9.7m between 1996 and 2011 to illegally intrude into the lives of the claimants.

MGN disputes this - and the allegation that executives sanctioning these payments must have known what was going on.

The barrister told the court that some investigators had once openly advertised illegal services.

One 1996 agency, IIG Europe, was run by investigator Gavin Burrows. Sherborne said it promoted services including tracking phones to within 150ft, intercepting land lines and vehicle and asset tracking.

“These were the services he was offering [to newspapers] and it was all unlawful,” he said.

IIG's website is long gone - but a record of what Mr Sherborne referred to this morning can still be found on the internet archive service, external - and is shown below.

Image source, Internet Archive

In an interview recorded before the start of the trial, former editor of the Mirror Piers Morgan told the BBC’s Amol Rajan that he “doesn’t give a damn” about Prince Harry’s accusations of phone hacking at the paper.

Morgan said he had no sympathy for intrusions into Harry’s privacy, and blamed the prince for invading the privacy of the royals with his revelations about his family.

But Morgan insisted: "I've never hacked a phone. I've never told anybody to hack a phone.”

You can watch the full interview between Piers Morgan and Amol Rajan now on BBC iPlayer

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

Sherborne stresses the case goes higher than journalists.

He says: “In short we say this condoning of these activities meant these journalists were able to continue them at this widespread level.”

Sherbourne goes on to say that senior figures knew what was going on and this aggravates potential damages for the claimants.

“Had they stopped it, they [the victims] would not have had to suffer as much," he adds.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

David Sherborne has referred the court to key senior figures in Mirror Group who he says "authorised" unlawful obtaining of private information.

He says the group included editors Piers Morgan, Neil Wallis, Tina Weaver, Mark Thomas, Richard Wallace and Bridget Rowe.

He alleges that managing editors and senior executives at the time also knew about the practices.

"Mr Morgan was right at the heart of this in many ways," he tells the court.

"He was a hands on editor and was close to the board. We have the direct involvement of Mr Morgan in a number of these incidents."

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

Sherborne tells the court senior figures at MGN authorised payments “in their millions” to private investigators.

In written arguments, he says “the systemic and widespread use of PIs by MGN journalists to unlawfully obtain private information was authorised at senior levels”, including desk heads, editors, managing editors and senior executives.

Katie Razzall
Culture editor, reporting from the High Court

Sherborne goes on to explain some of the processes he claims were used by journalists to gather information unlawfully.

He said landline voicemails could be intercepted, even if they were ex-directory, with the help of private investigators.

Journalists would also provide paparazzi photographers with addresses and landline numbers.

Sherborne said “We have the deputy editor ringing up and saying, 'we have these numbers'. We say that’s because they [the photographers] were going to hack into their phones and find out where they [the celebrities] would be at any time.”.

He continues “That’s why so many claimants had photographers who were turning up at places they didn’t expect them to be”.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court

Barrister David Sherborne for the claimants tells the court one of the most “serious and troubling” features of the case is the extent to which “widespread, habitual and unlawful” activities were “authorised at the highest level”.

He claims senior executives, editors and managers at MGN “were so bound up in this wrongdoing, it’s no wonder it was so widespread”.

He goes on to allege that the organisation was “concealing unlawful activity” at all levels, and it was “well aware of how damaging it was”.