Sam Hancock
Live reporter

Phew, it's been a busy day covering the High Court ruling over Prince Harry's phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers - but we're closing this page now.

For a snapshot of the day's action, read our 150-word summary in the previous post.

And if you want to keep reading after we've gone, head to our main news story, written by the BBC's royal correspondent Sean Coughlan.

Thanks for sticking with our coverage, which was written by Thomas Mackintosh, Andrew Humphrey, James Gregory, Jacqueline Howard and Emily Atkinson. It was edited by Nathan Williams and me.

Image source, Reuters

In a 386-page ruling, a judge found that Prince Harry had been a victim of phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

The royal was awarded £140,600 in damages and called this "a great day for truth as well as accountability".

Justice Fancourt said unlawful information gathering was "widespread" at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People newspapers from 1996 onwards, and phone hacking became "habitual" from 1998.

MGN has previously admitted that phone-hacking took place at its papers, issuing a public apology in 2015, but denied it in this case.

Justice Fancourt also found that senior executives at the publisher - including former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan - were aware of phone hacking taking place.

In a heated statement outside his west London home, Morgan denied ever hacking a phone or asking anyone to hack a phone.

The Metropolitan Police force has released a brief statement, saying officers will now "carefully consider the civil judgment handed down today at the High Court" in the case of Prince Harry v Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

Soon after Justice Fancourt delivered his judgement, Harry called for authorities to "do their duty for the British public and investigate bringing charges against the company and those who broke the law".

But, as things stands, "there is no ongoing investigation," the Met said in its statement.

Here's the moment Piers Morgan denied he had ever "hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack a phone".

We covered the statement that the TV presenter gave earlier outside his front door - flanked by a Christmas wreath - which you can catch up on here.

For Harry, it's not about the moneypublished at 17:05 Greenwich Mean Time 15 December 2023

17:05 GMT 15 December 2023

Sean Coughlan
Royal correspondent

Prince Harry won damages of £140,600 in today's High Court ruling. But it’s never been about the money for him.

While many other famous people claiming to have been hacked have settled their cases, the Duke of Sussex has kept on pushing for a legal showdown.

It was a personal battle, inextricably linked to his own well-documented anxieties.

Now he’s been vindicated that he has been the victim of dishonest practices.

And according to Philippa Dempster, a lawyer specialising in privacy cases, the result is likely to “embolden claims” from “hundreds of people who had articles written about them in the 1990s and 2000s containing private information from questionable sources”.

Image source, Getty Images

Let's return to some of the reaction we were seeing earlier, about the High Court ruling itself.

Alan Yentob has held senior roles at the BBC - including being the controller of BBC1 and BBC2 - and in 2014 he sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) after his phone was hacked.

He described today's judgement as "revelatory".

"The use of private investigators, the fact that all the senior staff knew what was going on, the fact that hundreds of millions pounds have been paid out by newspapers to victims of this that we haven't heard about," Yentob told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme this afternoon.

"I think you're going to hear a lot more about this, there's a lot more coming."

Emily Atkinson
Live reporter

Image source, PA Media

If you're just joining us, we've been listening to Piers Morgan give a statement after a judge concluded he knew about - and was involved in - phone hacking while editing the Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004.

The test case was brought by Prince Harry, and three other claimants, who accused the paper's publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) of using phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering methods to write stories.

Here's a snapshot of what we heard:

• Morgan said he's "never hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack a phone" - a denial he's offered repeatedly since allegations first emerged
• Questioning his attachment to the case, he said the court had found that just one article published under his editorship may have been gathered unlawfully
• The presenter criticised both sides for allegedly failing to ask him to appear as a witness, and said he didn't have any conversations with Mirror group lawyers throughout the case
• Turning on Prince Harry, Morgan accused the royal of being "ruthless, greedy and hypocritical" and questioned his mission to reform the media
• In a final jab, Morgan said the truth isn't something the Duke of Sussex would know if it "slapped him around his California tanned face"

Towards the end of a fiery statement, Morgan questions Prince Harry's mission to reform the media and learn the truth about historic phone hacking.

The presenter says the truth isn't something Harry would know if it "slapped him around his California tanned face".

He then wishes reporters a Merry Christmas, before heading back into his house - ignoring questions along the way.

The end of Morgan's statement focuses on Prince Harry, who brought the case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

"Prince Harry's outrage about the media intrusion into the private lives of the Royal Family is only matched by his own ruthless, greedy and hypocritical enthusiasm for doing it himself," Morgan tells reporters, adding:

Morgan says he didn't have a "single conversation with any of the Mirror group lawyers throughout the entire legal process".

He says he'd have been happy to do this, as well as "provide a statement" - had he been asked.

Morgan goes on to state that he has "never hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack a phone", and says there has been no evidence produced to prove that he did.

He also says he wasn't called as a witness by either side in the case, nor asked to provide a statement, which he says he would have been happy to do.

Piers Morgan has emerged from his central London home - and begins reading a statement.

He's previously - and repeatedly - denied knowing about or being involved in phone hacking when he was editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper.

Speaking to a press scrum from outside his front door, the presenter says that on the various cases the judged ruled, it's been found that just one article published under his time as editor may have been gathered unlawfully.

But he adds that he has no idea how the information was gathered.

We're currently watching a live feed from journalists outside Piers Morgan's house.

They, and we, are waiting for the presenter to deliver a response he's promised after a judge ruled today that he had been involved in phone hacking while he worked at the Daily Mirror newspaper.

We'll bring you live updates of the statement when it begins.

Image source, PA Media

In the last few minutes, Piers Morgan has said he'll soon make a statement about today's High Court ruling.

"So all you guys camped outside my house in the cold won't have to have to wait much longer," he joked to journalists, in a post on social media.

Mr Justice Fancourt ruled earlier today that Morgan knew about phone hacking - and was involved - when he was editor of the Daily Mirror between 1995 and 2004

Mirror Group Newspapers has admitted phone hacking took place, but insists blame cannot be pinned on executives or editors because it says the unlawful activity was deliberately concealed by the journalists.

Morgan has repeatedly denied involvement in phone hacking.

In a summary of his 386-page ruling, High Court judge Mr Justice Fancourt concluded phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) had continued "even to some extent" during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.

Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti advised the 2011 inquiry, which looked at the practices and ethics of the British press in the wake of the now-defunct News of the World phone hacking scandal.

She told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme that the findings of Prince Harry's cases were "totally disgraceful".

"These things only work if there is an element of genuine cooperation by those involved and people don't lie," she said.

"Now we see the senior executives and it would seem Mr [Piers] Morgan - who is not normally a shy man but doesn't want to speak to you today - they lied to the Leveson Inquiry and that is stomach-churning."

As we reported earlier, part of the judge's ruling today was that Morgan knew about phone hacking - and was involved - when he was editor of the Daily Mirror. The TV presenter is yet to respond or make a statement.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

The majority of Prince Harry’s wins relate to damning findings that journalists and their private investigators targeted his once long-term girlfriend Chelsy Davy between 2003 and 2009.

Harry told the judge the pair had struggled to make their relationship work amid constant and seemingly never-ending media intrusion - and he blamed their eventual break-up on unlawful intrusion.

Ten articles about Davy were the product of unlawful activity, the court ruled today.

One Sunday Mirror article, from 2009, reported she had dumped the Duke because he loved the Army more than her. How did the paper know this?

Mr Justice Fancourt said there had been three calls from the phone extension for Grant Hodgson, a journalist, to Davy’s phone. “These [calls] could have been attempts to obtain a response directly from her or to access her voicemails,” he said, adding:

Before we heard from Prince Harry's lawyer earlier, Philippa Dempster, a defamation lawyer at Freeths, was talking to our colleagues on the BBC News channel.

She explained how this particular case was brought by Prince Harry and others via the civil courts, rather than the criminal courts - meaning there's no chance of anyone going to jail.

"This is really about financial compensation," she said. "The civil courts offer opportunities for the public, in this case celebrities and Prince Harry, to bring a case", whereas in the criminal courts, cases are brought the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

As we've been reporting, Harry has been awarded £140,600 in damages with the judge finding that the royal's phone was targeted between 2003 and 2009. Another claimant in the case, Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell (real name Michael Turner), was awarded £31,650.

In practice, Harry may end up with an awful lot more because there are still a further 115 articles he alleges are linked to hacking which were not part of this test case. However, as he has repeatedly said, this battle is not about the money - but getting at the truth.

Harry's feud with tabloids far from overpublished at 13:02 Greenwich Mean Time 15 December 2023

13:02 GMT 15 December 2023

Sean Coughlan
Royal correspondent

This has been a very big day for Prince Harry - and also for his complicated relationship with the rest of the Royal Family.

He can now say that a judge has confirmed his claims that stories about him were based on phone hacking and other dishonest methods. It wasn’t paranoia or a victim complex.

After all those years of labyrinthine legal proceedings, he can finally say he’s been vindicated. The panic attacks and distrust of everyone described in his book Spare might be better understood now.

He said in a statement:

That suggests it’s unlikely that his long feud with the tabloid press is going to be over - and he still has multiple legal battles continuing with other newspaper groups.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

The judge says two executives concealed hacking from Mirror board. We have already reported the judge's ruling that Piers Morgan knew about and was involved in hacking - but what did he say about other top figures at the Mirror Group?

Justice Fancourt said two directors knew before the end of 2011: Paul Vickers, group legal director, and Sly Bailey, the chief executive officer. “The board as a whole was not told about it,” the judge told the court.

“That was because the editors of the three newspapers, the editorial managers of the company and Bailey and Vickers did not report what they knew, or suspected, to the board.

"I have found that Mr Vickers certainly knew about phone hacking from about the end of 2003, but quite possibly before then. "Ms Bailey knew or – what in law amounts to the same thing – turned a blind eye to it from about the end of 2006.

"The likelihood of extensive illegal activity should have been investigated properly.

"Instead, it was concealed from the board, from Parliament in 2007 and 2011, from the Leveson Inquiry, from shareholders, and from the public for years - and the extent of it was concealed from claimants in the Mirror Newspapers hacking litigation and even from the court at and before the trial in 2015."

Image source, PA Media

It has just gone 12:20 here in London and we're still covering the reaction to the Prince Harry judgement.

If you are just joining us, welcome, and let's give you a broader recap of what you need to know:

• Prince Harry was a victim of phone hacking, the High Court has ruled
• The judge, Justice Fancourt, ruled there was "extensive phone hacking" from Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) from 2006 to 2011
• MGN has apologised for what it called "historical wrongdoing" has been ordered to pay the prince £140,600 in compensation
• Prince Harry's barrister, David Sherborne, called on financial regulators and police to bring charges against the publisher
• The High Court also ruled Piers Morgan knew about phone hacking - and was involved - when he was editor of the Daily Mirror