In the case heard today in the Supreme Court, it was ruled that Prince Harry was the victim of phone hacking and other illegal actions carried out by reporters working for a media group, with the knowledge of their editors.
On October 4, 2019, Prince Harry sued The Sun, Daily Mirror and News of the World for “hacking” his phone messages.
The prince testified in court in June as the chief witness against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), the umbrella organization of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People newspapers, which he claimed had targeted him for 15 years.
Thus, Prince Harry became the first senior member of the British Royal family to testify in court after 130 years.
Judge Timothy Fancourt ruled that Prince Harry be paid $180,000 in compensation at the hearing.
The fact that the court in London concluded that the editors and managers of the newspapers were aware of the mistakes made was seen as a great ‘legal victory’ for the Prince.
Because there were reports from time to time that there was ‘paranoia’ both within the Royal family and in the mainstream media.
Judge Fancourt stated that they examined 33 of the 140 articles sued by Prince Harry as a precedent and said, “We determined that 15 of the 33 articles examined were the product of hacking of (the Prince’s) mobile phone or the mobile phones of his relatives or other illegal information collection.” “We did.” he said.
Following the decision, Prince Harry called on authorities and police to take action against those found to be breaking the law.
The Duke of Sussex was one of 100 claimants, including actors, sports stars, celebrities and people linked to high-profile people, who sued the court over allegations of phone tapping and illegal information collection (1991-2011).
The case included complaints about private detectives placing eavesdropping devices on cars and houses, recording private phone conversations, illegally accessing bank accounts, trespassing on private property, and paying money to the police to obtain inside information.
MGN issued an “unconditional apology” message after the decision and said, “We sincerely apologize for the situations in which historical wrongs occurred, we take full responsibility, we declare that we will pay appropriate compensation, and we welcome today’s decision.”
