We're finishing our live coverage now. The writers through the course of today were Gabriela Pomeroy, Oliver Slow, Ece Goksedef, Charley Adams and Thomas Mackintosh. Reporting from the High Court were Jemma Crew, Sean Coughlan and Tom Symonds. The editors were Marita Moloney, Jamie Whitehead and Heather Sharp.

We are shortly going to be ending today's coverage of the phone hacking trial at the High Court.

Earlier, lawyers defending Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) accused Prince Harry of wasting time at his trial by not being there to give evidence on the opening day.

The Duke of Sussex has accused The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The People of using illegal methods to breach his privacy, going back to when he was 12 years old - allegations the publisher denies.

The hearing resumes tomorrow morning at the High Court where we anticipate an appearance from the duke himself - so please do join us for our continued coverage.

• You can read our news story about the case here

We're about to put this page to bed, but before we do, here's a recap of what we've heard today.

Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, has been making the case that unlawful methods were used to gather information for stories about the prince:

• "Every facet" of Harry's life was splashed across the papers
• He said the prince was subjected to unlawful information gathering activity from when he was a young boy at school

• Sherborne suggested that Harry and his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy suspected their own friends of leaking stories
• Illegal methods of sourcing information "acted like a web around the prince", he said
• He criticised MGN for not calling certain witnesses, including journalists, to give evidence

The lawyer for MGN, Andrew Green KC, told the court:

• "There’s no evidence to support a finding that any mobile phone owned or used by the Duke of Sussex was hacked. Zilch, Zero, Nil, De Nada, Niente, Nothing."
• There was a police investigation into the Mirror newspapers, but the police never suggested the Duke was a victim of phone hacking

• Not one journalist who has come forward to admit phone hacking has ever said they hacked Prince Harry’s phone

Scene set for a High Court royal battle tomorrowpublished at 16:52 British Summer Time 5 June 2023

16:52 BST 5 June 2023

Sean Coughlan
Royal correspondent, reporting from court

The hacking trial on Monday turned out to be the warm-up for the headline act tomorrow – Prince Harry’s much-anticipated appearance in the witness box.

Although if today is anything to go by, when he faces questions he’ll be sitting down behind a computer screen, glass of water at hand, rather than anything more theatrical.

It seemed to have annoyed MGN's lawyers that Prince Harry wasn’t here for the first day specifically relating to his claims of hacking.

They clearly want to keep him in the witness box asking questions for as long as possible – and that will now stretch through Tuesday and into Wednesday.

But, Prince Harry’s claims were presented by his lawyers – depicting him as someone whose entire life, private and public, has been “invaded” by a tabloid press which resorted to hacking and unlawful means of finding information.

The prince’s relationship with his family, his girlfriends, even his health, had been caught up in this “web”, according to his lawyers.

But the Mirror Group's lawyers hit back strongly – arguing that despite all the broad allegations, there was no unambiguous evidence of phone hacking of Prince Harry.

Although they put it more colourfully, saying there was: “Zilch. Zero. Nil. De Nada. Niente. Nothing.”

The two sides have set the scene for a royal battle in the morning.

The hearing has just finished for the day and it will continue tomorrow - and it looks likely Prince Harry will be giving evidence himself.

We're going to take a few minutes to wrap up the last bits of evidence and analyse what has happened in the High Court today.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

During his opening, Andrew Green KC also addressed the suggestion MGN journalists hacked Princess Diana’s phone as “total speculation without any evidential basis”.

Earlier today, the court was told of letters between Diana and former TV star Michael Barrymore which referred to meetings between the pair.

In one of the letters Diana referred to being "devastated" to learn the "Daily Mirror" had called her office about him and their meetings.

David Sherborne, representing Prince Harry, had said the Daily Mirror had learned of these “secret and highly sensitive” meetings because it had been listening to voicemail messages.

But, Green told the court: “The letters you were shown, to Michael Barrymore, are not evidence of voicemail interception”.

He added that “plainly no such finding could be made”.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

Andrew Green KC concluded his 30-minutes rebuttal for MGN by arguing that the Duke's case was "fantastical".

He asked the judge to consider a 2002 Sunday Mirror story concerning the then teenager going to boozy drug-fuelled lock-ins at a pub near his father's Gloucestershire estate.

Green argued there was no evidence of phone hacking in relation to that story - and no payments to private investigators either.

"The information would almost certainly have been obtained by the journalists speaking to the locals or someone at the pub," he told the court. "It is the sort of information that journalists get hold of."

Tom Symonds
Home Affairs Correspondent, reporting from court

Lawyer for the respondent, Andrew Green KC, has given a four bullet-point summary of Mirror Group Newspapers’ case on phone hacking allegations. He argues that:

• There is no data showing calls for phone hacking to the Duke of Sussex’s phone. For other "targets" there were hundreds. The data was obtained from MGN’s phone system and recorded calls made by journalists in newsrooms.
• None of the whistle-blowing journalists who have come forward admitting phone hacking said they hacked Prince Harry’s phone.
• There has been a police investigation into the Mirror newspapers but police never suggested to the Duke he had been a victim of phone hacking.
• The security arrangements around Prince Harry were “like very few security operations on earth”. Journalists would have been taking an “absolutely enormous risk” in targeting him.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, continues that it is a “striking fact” that not one person who has come forward to admit phone hacking has ever said the Duke of Sussex was hacked by any of the papers in this case.

Another striking fact is the Metropolitan Police has never suggested to the Duke of Sussex that he was hacked by anyone at MGN, he says.

“It all points to the fact that MGN journalists were not the ones intercepting the Duke of Sussex’s messages,” he adds

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

Andrew Green KC for Mirror Group Newspapers has now launched a massive counter-attack on the claims made this morning by Prince Harry's team. There's not a shred of evidence he says.

"He’s got to establish that the defendant’s journalists hacked the phones... There is simply no evidence capable of supporting the finding that the Duke of Sussex was hacked, still less on a habitual basis," he says.

"There’s no evidence to support a finding that any mobile phone owned or used by the Duke of Sussex was hacked. Zilch, Zero, Nil, De Nada, Niente, Nothing."

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

We are now hearing from Andrew Green who represents Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). Stay with us for updates.

Tom Symonds
Home affairs correspondent, reporting from court

David Sherborne finishes saying the articles prove that “every period of the prince’s life during these years was invaded” by phone hacking.

“It’s the use of these messages by a national newspaper group which has brought him here, not just some vendetta against the press generally," he adds.

“He has been able to focus the attention which comes with his position on these activities, carried out by journalists and concealed, even though they were known about, by senior members of the board of this PLC and the legal department."

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

David Sherborne says of Prince Harry: “Who could forgive him for being protective as he grew up of future relationships, seeing what they have to go through and being worried about what those around him would be subjected to and the mental strength they would need to deal with it.”

Sean Coughlan
Royal correspondent

If you’re imagining this courtroom scene as a rather old-fashioned spectacle, with a lot of mahogany and pomp, then you’d be a long way off the mark.

It’s in a modern court with lots of plain cream walls, screens and modular furniture and shelves, looking more Ikea than Old Bailey. Or maybe a classroom in an ambitious sixth form college.

Many of the journalists are in an “overspill” courtroom watching a live video link, in a virtual extension of the court next door.

The barristers are wearing wigs and gowns, but the setting is more like a modern corporate office than a court scene in a costume drama.

Image source, Reuters

Tom Symonds
Home Affairs Correspondent, reporting from court

Here's a little bit more on what Harry's lawyer has been telling the court about newspaper reports covering the then 19-year-old prince's relationship with Chelsy Davy.

David Sherborne noted that Dean Rousewell, the People’s royal editor reported an “insider” had said that Harry “just can’t concentrate or relax when he’s apart from her and gets quite emotional about her absence from his life".

Sherborne has already suggested words like “an insider” were used to cover for illegal methods such as phone hacking.

Prince Harry ended the relationship, and Chelsy Davy decided a royal life was not for her.

Sherborne suggested Prince Harry and Davy began to suspect friends of leaking to the newspapers.

“It caused their circle of friends to become smaller and smaller - meaning that relationships were lost entirely unnecessarily,” he said.

Sherborne has accepted there is little direct evidence of unlawful methods being used to get stories like this.

But, he told the court that Rousewell, the author of a number of Prince Harry stories, was named in nearly 400 invoices to private investigation firms, including for criminal record and vehicle record checks.

MGN deny the stories were gathered unlawfully.

Dominic Casciani
Legal correspondent, reporting from court

Image source, PA

David Sherborne has been showing the court stories concerning Prince Harry's first long-term relationship, with Chelsy Davy.

He tells the court about a story from The People in April 2005 which apparently details the Duke's besotted and emotional phone calls to her.

Sherbourne says these details were: "The most embarrassing thing which could be put in a newspaper for a 19-year-old boy."

He goes on: "How little chance this relationship was given because of this... constant exposure.

"Your lordship will notice how young he was - little more than a child - as was Ms Davy. It was as if they were never alone."

Earlier today, David Sherborne told the court Princess Diana was a "huge target" for MGN's newspapers, adding 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."

Sherborne turned to letters exchanged between Diana and former TV star Michael Barrymore which referred to meetings between the pair.

In one of the letters Diana referred to being "devastated" to learn the "Daily Mirror" had called her office about him and their meetings.

Mr Sherborne added: "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."

He said it was at the time that it had become public that Barrymore was gay, in the process of a divorce and being treated for addiction to drink and drugs.

Helena Wilkinson
Reporting from outside the High Court

On the road outside the High Court in central London a flatbed truck has just turned up with around 40 pavement barriers in anticipation of Prince Harry’s arrival here tomorrow.

They are being put up along the pavement which is already lined with dozens of photographers and camera crews from the UK and around the world.

Dominic Casciani
Legal Correspondent

This story from The People in 2003 details an apparently private disagreement between Princes William and Harry over how to handle their late mother's former butler, Paul Burrell.

At the time, he was accused of talking to the media about her private affairs.

David Sherborne, for the Duke of Sussex, tells the court that Rachel Bletchley, the journalist who is bylined on this story can be linked to numerous payments to private investigators.

MGN is defending this story saying it came from a “confidential source” who specialised in royal matters.

But Mr Sherborne says: "We don’t have Ms Bletchley coming along to vouch who that source is... The seeds of discord between these two brothers are starting to be sown. Trust begins to be eroded."

Image source, Crown

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

David Sherborne - who represents Prince Harry - has been giving examples of stories he says were linked to unlawful activities.

He says: “These methods acted like a web around the prince in the hope it would catch the valuable information that it sought through these unlawful means - some of which made it into stories.”