Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

It depends what you mean by "a win".

Prince Harry alleges that he was the victim of more than 140 instances of illegal news gathering and the trial tested the evidence regarding 33 of those stories.

Now, unlike at a criminal trial, there won’t be a jury declaring they are sure beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt or innocence.

Instead, the judge will give detailed findings on each allegation and say whether, on the balance of probabilities, it is credible or not.

Speaking hypothetically, the judge could find for the Duke in relation to some of his allegations, but not in others.

The judge’s findings about how much Mirror Group bosses allegedly knew will also be central - an issue my colleague Tom Symonds explored after the trial.

It could be that we see headlines suggesting the Duke’s "lost" for one reason or another when, at the same time, he may have "won" a different part of his case.

The story of the day will be in this detail - not the headlines.

Katie Razzall
Culture editor

Many people will have believed phone hacking to be a story from the past. But this court case has pushed it right back into the spotlight.

Whatever happens in the next hour or so, this will be the most comprehensive judgment about one media organisation’s use of illegal information gathering techniques since the issue emerged years ago.

The names of some well-known journalists are in the frame, not least Piers Morgan who didn’t give evidence, but as editor of the Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004 was repeatedly referred to in the case.

If the judge rules in MGN's favour, wider Fleet Street (as it once was) will feel vindicated.

But, a "win" by Prince Harry and the other claimants will be significant and have ramifications, not least financial - at a time when newspaper groups are struggling and laying off staff.

Watch what happens to the share price of Reach PLC (the publisher of the Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People) once the judge rules this morning.

The articles fought over in court are from a different media era. They were read by millions.

That world is gone, but the legacy of the demand for exclusives, perhaps at any price, endures.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

We'll have to wait and see - but this is quite a complicated issue and we may be reading the judicial tea leaves.

The case heard allegations that Piers Morgan knew about hacking when he was the editor of the Mirror. He has denied it outside of court but did not give evidence in this case.

When a witness gives evidence, a judge must decide whether they are credible or not so they can work out whether their evidence helps one side or their other.

So all this case has is a variety of allegations about Morgan - but no actual rebuttal in court from the man himself.

One of the key allegations against him came from royal author Omid Scobie who, 20 years ago, was an intern at the paper.

He alleged in court that he had overheard Morgan and a reporter openly talking about a Kylie Minogue story having been sourced from a voicemail.

Justice Fancourt will have to decide whether Scobie was a credible witness - and his precise wording on this incident, and others touching on Morgan, may become a crucial part of the outcome.

Image source, PA Media

The headlines and media attention has, predictably, focused on Prince Harry, but there are another three high-profile figures in the case.

They are:

• Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell (real name Michael Turner)
• Nikki Sanderson, a former Corrie star herself
• Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse

Image source, PA Media

The four cases were chosen by the trial judge to help the court set the level of damages Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) should pay if the claimants win.

The High Court would then consider other cases from celebrities including the former Girls Aloud singer Cheryl, the estate of George Michael, actor Ricky Tomlinson and former Arsenal and England footballer Ian Wright.

The four claimants attempted to make a new case against Piers Morgan, suggesting he knew about phone-hacking and other illicit methods of information-gathering while he was editor of the Daily Mirror.

The TV presenter was the paper’s editor between 1995 and 2004 and had emerged largely unscathed from a 2015 trial that resulted in a public apology by the publisher.

Speaking to the BBC earlier this year, Morgan insisted he didn't know phone-hacking was going on - but said he couldn't be sure stories hadn't been published which used unlawful methods.

Of his own role, he said: "I never hacked a phone. I wouldn't even know how. I never told anybody to hack a phone.

"In the end, neither side called Morgan to the witness box - though the judge later put him at the top of a list of journalists who perhaps "could and should" have given evidence.

The publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) denies any unlawful gathering of information in any of the 207 stories on which the case is based.

It has, however, previously admitted that phone-hacking took place at its papers.

MGN issued a public apology in 2015 after admitting journalists had regularly used unlawful techniques and paid investigators to obtain private information, following allegations by a former Coronation Street actress.

It’s settled hundreds of claims. It paid out £1.25m in damages to eight victims in the 2015 case - and has set aside £28m to deal with hacking allegations.

But, the company insists the blame cannot be pinned on executives for such wrongdoing, because the unlawful activity was deliberately concealed by the journalists.

Image source, Julia Quenzler

It was an unprecedented royal spectacle in modern times. In June, Prince Harry took to the witness box where he gave evidence and faced cross-examination over the course of two days.

Harry said he had "experienced hostility from the press" from the day he was born, and alleged that tabloid newspapers hacked his phone messages when he was a teenager. He also said:

• MGN stories damaged his relationships, leaving him feeling he "couldn't trust anybody"
• Mirror journalists listened to the messages of his mother, Princess Diana, months before she was killed in a car crash
• Reporters also illegally obtained information about Harry’s then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy's visits
• He said he was suing the publisher to stop "absolute intrusion and hate" towards him and his wife Meghan
• Harry alleges about 140 articles published between 1996 and 2010 contained information gathered using unlawful methods, and 33 of these were selected to be considered in the case

Thomas Mackintosh
Live reporter

Image source, Reuters

A ruling is due this morning in a legal case Prince Harry and three others are bringing against the publisher of the Daily Mirror.

The Duke of Sussex and the other claimants allege phone-hacking and other forms of unauthorised gathering of information were used by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for articles its papers published.

MGN, which publishes the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People, has largely contested the claims and says none of the stories in question came from hacking.

Today’s eagerly-awaited ruling has been months in the waiting.

The trial began in May, and Prince Harry himself appeared in court in June, making him the most senior royal in modern times to appear at the witness box.

Stay with us as we build up to Mr Justice Fancourt’s ruling, which is expected at around 10.30 GMT.