On Monday, lawyers for Prince Harry blamed alleged illegal intrusion into his private life by journalists for the break-up of a long-term relationship.
In a witness statement read out by his lawyers, the Duke of Sussex said Chelsea Davy - his on-and-off girlfriend between 2004 and 2010 - decided that "a royal life was not for her" following repeated acts of harassment.
This included journalists booking into a hotel in Bazaruto, a small island off the coast of Mozambique, where the couple had tried to escape to in order to "enjoy some peace and quiet".
The lawyers also said that mobile phone data to be used in the trial shows that Davy was targeted for voicemail interception between 2007 and 2009.
Getty ImagesCopyright: Getty Images
The trial also heard an apology to Prince Harry from MGN for one instance of unlawful information gathering by a journalist at one of its titles.
A private investigator was instructed by a journalist at The People to unlawfully gather information about Harry's activities at the Chinawhite nightclub in London on one night in February 2004, the publisher’s barrister told the court.
But MGN denies allegations of voicemail interception in the cases and has also claimed some of the cases being brought are beyond a legal time limit.
Day two of the trial is now under way in court 15 at the High Court in London.
As the day progresses we
are expecting to hear the detail of the articles Prince Harry and the three
other claimants in this case say were the product of voicemail interception.
I’m in court for the session, where barrister David Sherborne, representing the four people bringing the case, is now speaking.
The evidence at the centre of the trial
Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent
PA MediaCopyright: PA Media
Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has repeatedly denied involvement in phone hackingImage caption: Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has repeatedly denied involvement in phone hacking
At the heart of the trial will be
207 newspaper stories published between 1991 and 2011.
Some 140 of them, dating from
1996 to 2010, were about Prince Harry.
The claimants argue senior
executives must have known about unlawful information gathering behind these
stories and failed to stop it.
One of the key allegations in the
case is that the TV presenter Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror between
1995 and 2004, knew of illegal activity.
The Duke of Sussex's lawyers want
the court to consider a series of incidents which they say are evidence that
Morgan not only knew about hacking but told others too.
Morgan has repeatedly denied
involvement in illegal phone hacking - but this is the first time that a court
will have been asked to rule on allegations about what he knew.
What the case is all about
ReutersCopyright: Reuters
Prince Harry attended the High Court in March for a separate hearing against a newspaper publisherImage caption: Prince Harry attended the High Court in March for a separate hearing against a newspaper publisher
Harry is one of several high-profile figures bringing claims against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). Lawyers argue that executives at the company knew about widespread phone hacking, but failed to act.
The estate of the late singer George Michael and actor Ricky Tomlinson have also brought claims against MGN, but it is the "test cases" - including Harry's - that have been selected to go to trial in the first instance from the wider group of claimants.
Alongside the Duke of Sussex, allegations from three other claimants are being heard: Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell (real name Michael Turner), actress Nikki Sanderson, and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of the comedian Paul Whitehouse.
MGN denies allegations of voicemail interception in all the cases. The company has also said that some of the cases being brought are beyond a legal time limit.
We're going to start to see the detail of articles Prince Harry and the three other claimants in this case say were the product of voicemail interception. It’s going to be quite detailed.
In essence, the job of the judge is not to simply go to the general arguments being brought by Prince Harry and others, who claim it’s obvious that people must have known what was going on.
He has to effectively analyse each of these articles, so there is going to be a lot of detail in the days to come.
In some respects, this case is starting to shape up into the narrative of "Prince Harry vs Piers Morgan" - the former editor of the Daily Mirror from 1995-2004.
Morgan is not appearing as a witness in this case as we understand it, and he denies any involvement in phone hacking at all.
But clearly a lot of what team Harry are saying in court is about what they argue is witness evidence that Morgan must have known.
So they’re really trying to push the idea that senior figures at the paper, beyond the frontline journalists, knew what was going on.
It’s going to be interesting to see how Mirror Group Newspapers respond to that once the evidence starts going before the judge.
Welcome to our live coverage
Alex Kleiderman
Live reporter
Hello and welcome to our live coverage of the case being brought against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) by Prince Harry and a number of celebrities.
It’s the second day of the trial involving allegations that journalists from publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People used phone hacking and other illicit means to access private information.
The case being heard at the High Court in London is expected to last seven-weeks.
The Duke of Sussex is set to give evidence in person in June - making him the first senior member of the Royal Family in modern times to appear in a court and be cross-examined.
On Wednesday, the publisher of the Mirror apologised to Prince Harry for unlawful information gathering on one occasion. But it denies this involved hacking his phone.
Stick with us for updates and analysis of the day's developments in the trial.
Live Reporting
Edited by Alex Kleiderman and Heather Sharp
All times stated are UK
Day one recap
On Monday, lawyers for Prince Harry blamed alleged illegal intrusion into his private life by journalists for the break-up of a long-term relationship.
In a witness statement read out by his lawyers, the Duke of Sussex said Chelsea Davy - his on-and-off girlfriend between 2004 and 2010 - decided that "a royal life was not for her" following repeated acts of harassment.
This included journalists booking into a hotel in Bazaruto, a small island off the coast of Mozambique, where the couple had tried to escape to in order to "enjoy some peace and quiet".
The lawyers also said that mobile phone data to be used in the trial shows that Davy was targeted for voicemail interception between 2007 and 2009.
The trial also heard an apology to Prince Harry from MGN for one instance of unlawful information gathering by a journalist at one of its titles.
A private investigator was instructed by a journalist at The People to unlawfully gather information about Harry's activities at the Chinawhite nightclub in London on one night in February 2004, the publisher’s barrister told the court.
But MGN denies allegations of voicemail interception in the cases and has also claimed some of the cases being brought are beyond a legal time limit.
Read more about the first day of the trial here.
Hearing under way
Jemma Crew
Reporting from the High Court
Day two of the trial is now under way in court 15 at the High Court in London.
As the day progresses we are expecting to hear the detail of the articles Prince Harry and the three other claimants in this case say were the product of voicemail interception.
I’m in court for the session, where barrister David Sherborne, representing the four people bringing the case, is now speaking.
The evidence at the centre of the trial
Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent
At the heart of the trial will be 207 newspaper stories published between 1991 and 2011.
Some 140 of them, dating from 1996 to 2010, were about Prince Harry.
The claimants argue senior executives must have known about unlawful information gathering behind these stories and failed to stop it.
One of the key allegations in the case is that the TV presenter Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror between 1995 and 2004, knew of illegal activity.
The Duke of Sussex's lawyers want the court to consider a series of incidents which they say are evidence that Morgan not only knew about hacking but told others too.
Morgan has repeatedly denied involvement in illegal phone hacking - but this is the first time that a court will have been asked to rule on allegations about what he knew.
What the case is all about
Harry is one of several high-profile figures bringing claims against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). Lawyers argue that executives at the company knew about widespread phone hacking, but failed to act.
The estate of the late singer George Michael and actor Ricky Tomlinson have also brought claims against MGN, but it is the "test cases" - including Harry's - that have been selected to go to trial in the first instance from the wider group of claimants.
Alongside the Duke of Sussex, allegations from three other claimants are being heard: Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell (real name Michael Turner), actress Nikki Sanderson, and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of the comedian Paul Whitehouse.
MGN denies allegations of voicemail interception in all the cases. The company has also said that some of the cases being brought are beyond a legal time limit.
Read more here
What are we expecting today?
Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent
We're going to start to see the detail of articles Prince Harry and the three other claimants in this case say were the product of voicemail interception. It’s going to be quite detailed.
In essence, the job of the judge is not to simply go to the general arguments being brought by Prince Harry and others, who claim it’s obvious that people must have known what was going on.
He has to effectively analyse each of these articles, so there is going to be a lot of detail in the days to come.
In some respects, this case is starting to shape up into the narrative of "Prince Harry vs Piers Morgan" - the former editor of the Daily Mirror from 1995-2004.
Morgan is not appearing as a witness in this case as we understand it, and he denies any involvement in phone hacking at all.
But clearly a lot of what team Harry are saying in court is about what they argue is witness evidence that Morgan must have known.
So they’re really trying to push the idea that senior figures at the paper, beyond the frontline journalists, knew what was going on.
It’s going to be interesting to see how Mirror Group Newspapers respond to that once the evidence starts going before the judge.
Welcome to our live coverage
Alex Kleiderman
Live reporter
Hello and welcome to our live coverage of the case being brought against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) by Prince Harry and a number of celebrities.
It’s the second day of the trial involving allegations that journalists from publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People used phone hacking and other illicit means to access private information.
The case being heard at the High Court in London is expected to last seven-weeks.
The Duke of Sussex is set to give evidence in person in June - making him the first senior member of the Royal Family in modern times to appear in a court and be cross-examined.
On Wednesday, the publisher of the Mirror apologised to Prince Harry for unlawful information gathering on one occasion. But it denies this involved hacking his phone.
Stick with us for updates and analysis of the day's developments in the trial.