Judge Timothy Fancourt ruled that Harry’s personal phone was targeted between 2003 and 2009 and that 15 out of 33 sample articles were the result of phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.
Harry did not attend court in person, but commentators said he would be watching the ruling via video link.
In a statement, the Mirror Group Newspapers said it welcomed the judgment making it possible to “move forward” from events that took place long ago. “Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”
Earlier this year, Harry became the first high-ranking British royal in 130 years to testify in court as he gave evidence over his allegations that Mirror Group Newspapers used unlawful information gathering to dig up dirt on him. He sat through nearly five hours of questioning.
Harry alleged that journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers’ titles — the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People — knew information about him that could have only been discovered through unlawful activity. His lawyers submitted 148 newspaper articles, dating from 1996 to 2010, but the trial only considered 33 of these.
In his witness statement, Harry wrote that the alleged illegal snooping had fostered an environment of distrust within his circle of friends and family. He wrote that he could now see “how much of my life was wasted on this paranoia.”
The judge ruled that editors had been aware of what was going on. There was “compelling evidence that the editors of each newspaper knew very well that [phone hacking] was being used extensively and habitually and that they were happy to take the benefits of it,” Fancourt wrote in his judgment.
The judge also said that Omid Scobie, a biographer of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was a “straightforward and reliable witness.” Scobie told the court that he overheard Piers Morgan, then editor of the Daily Mirror, being told about a story that had come from voice mails. Morgan, a high profile media figure and frequent critic of Harry and Meghan, has always denied any involvement in phone hacking. He has not publicly commented on the ruling.
Speaking outside of the High Court, Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne read a statement on behalf of Harry.
“I’ve been told slaying dragons will get you burned. But in light of today’s victory and the importance of doing what is needed for a free and honest press — it’s a worthwhile price to pay,” the statement said. “The mission continues.”
Harry has made it clear that he is on a quest to change Britain’s unruly tabloid media. He has repeatedly taken the British press to court and has two other lawsuits against media companies that are working their way through British courts.
In his autobiography, “Spare,” Harry wrote extensively about the hounding he endured from the press, first as a child when his mother Princess Diana was constantly in the public eye and then later as an adult and member of the royal family.
