Extensive Phone Hacking by MGN

[Roussette]

So... Harry has won his case.

As lawyers are saying now... this is massive. 15 out of 33 accusations of hacking by Harry were upheld as a result of phone hacking and other illegal practices.
Hacking and blagging were even taking place during the Leveson enquiry.

He has won damages of £140,000 plus. And before this thread descends into Harry hate, please think of all the other claimants who have also had their claims upheld and damages awarded to them. They went through hell, medical records hacked and reported on, trackers on cars, phones hacked...

It's not about the money, it's about 'accountability of power'.

interesting....

@Iamalawyer thanks for sharing your views on Harry's evidence and submissions.

No-one here is suggesting that they were perfect.

And I would be interested in hearing your views of MGN's evidence (or lack thereof) and submissions, including their arrogant attempts to dismiss the claimant's evidence with their now infamous claims of "Zilch, zero, nil, de nada, niente, nothing", which the judge blasted into space.

I suspect MGN's evidence wasn't perfect either, given the outcome.

As to 'dragon-slayers', I like it. It encapsulates exactly how it felt to Harry, how it must have been described to him before the trial, along with 'tilting at windmills', 'suicide mission', 'losing battle' etc etc etc.

The big picture fact remains that Harry won and achieved his goals of a verdict in a court, when he could have settled in silence and secrecy as William did.

In doing so, Harry and the other claimants have put back into the spotlight the issue of press standards and ethical journalism, where they would have remained had the current government not cowardly cancelled Leveson II.

Mission accomplished, for Harry and for the rest of us. Or at least Part I of it.

This is indeed really interesting.

When do we find out what his costs are?

'As to 'dragon-slayers', I like it. It encapsulates exactly how it felt to Harry, how it must have been described to him before the trial, along with 'tilting at windmills', 'suicide mission', 'losing battle' etc etc etc.'

Yes dragon slayer absolutely matches his achievements here .

Considering dragons are mythical, you would wonder why he used that analogy.

@Iamalawyer I have read the judgement and I think its interesting thats the part you've decided to bring here with your first contribution, which is on his legal team isn't it? Anyhow, Harry's statement was echoed across the media and by many others in public who are lawyers- with their professional credentials able to be checked.

If you read the judgement, you would have seen how the test cases were determined, perhaps in your eagerness to find something to find fault with Harry on this, you missed it:

In order to make the trial manageable within the 7 weeks allotted for it, a selection of 33 ( from 148 ) of Prince Harry's articles was agreed by the parties as a representative sample. This includes articles chosen by either side, so for that reason some are likely more strongly to support the Duke's case and others are more likely to support MGN's case that the article contained only material already in the public domain or facts that were not within the scope of Article 8 protection at all. The articles were also selected to cover the full period about which the Duke complains that UIG was being conducted, namely 1996 – 2011. It is expected that determination of this sample, in his case, will enable him and MGN to resolve the remainder of his claim by agreement. As will become apparent, the Duke appeared much more concerned to establish the full, broad picture about MGN's illegal activities than to be compensated for individual instances of UIG.

Super-helpful, thanks @Cakester

Some folks seem determined to mis-represent what has just happened here, sowing confusion about the significance of what many sour-grapes in the media have been gleefully describing as "Harry's partial win".

This is a vital clarification.

Rich people, who can afford a substantial costs penalty, waging their vendettas and ignoring the Civil Procedure Rules is the height of entitlement.

I think thats a really awful take on this whole thing, and its one @Serenster and others who have not yet joined us, has said on this board when discussing these cases before.

I think rich media organisations, and individuals like Rupert Murdoch, using their papers to commit illegal activity on a mass scale, and getting away with it because the government of the day is friendly with them, and they have billions behind them to simply pay people off, is actually what is wrong with the system.

I think someone who uses their wealth and power to hold even wealthier and more powerful people to account is admirable, no matter who it is. Hugh Grant, Prince Harry or Baroness Lawrence, I don't mind as long as what they're doing is holding powerful people responsible for things that the authorities have turned a blind eye to, or even participated in. That ordinary people have also had this happen to them but don't have the power or money to do anything about it, will be thanking everyone involved with this.

I can't stand her show as she is unable to either argue with callers who oppose her view or draw them into contradicting themselves she just cuts them off by using an ad break or the news.

However I suspect she will eventually put her foot in it and get sacked.

Ever heard of the Crown Prosecution Service?

Those wanting, and clearly hoping, to see what Harrys costs are ( instead of MGN's ) remember, these were test cases. He has 114 other claims which will be discussed in January I believe, along with the 100 other claimants and their claims, who are part of this.

Rich people, who can afford a substantial costs penalty, waging their vendettas and ignoring the Civil Procedure Rules is the height of entitlement.

You mean like Max Mosley who funded other people's cases when he was alive?

From the judgement, some key parts I thought worth highlighting her given recent posts;

Out of order but this is really important!

Unlike in previous years, the four sample claims (and many others) have not settled. MGN explained in case management conferences preceding this trial that it was now unwilling to settle claims because it wanted certain key issues to be decided by the court, which could have a significant effect on the way that other claims will then be settled.

Bear the above in mind when you make comments relating to settling before trial.
__

The main issues are:

1. a. Whether VMI and/or other UIG was being carried on between 1991 and early 1999 to the same extent as Mann J found that they were between May 1999 and August 2006, and, if not, to what if any extent, and for what period or periods.
2. b. Whether, despite the fall-off in volume of VMI found by Mann J to have followed the arrest of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman in August 2006, VMI and other UIG resumed to any significant extent after August 2006 and continued up to and including the end of 2011, by when the Leveson Inquiry was sitting, and, if so, to what extent, and for what period or periods.
3. c. Whether various PIs of central importance in the claims are proved to have carried out illegal or unlawful activities on the instruction of MGN. MGN has made only limited admissions about certain PIs.
4. d. Whether certain individuals who held senior positions in the legal departments of the newspapers, or on the boards of MGN or TM plc, knew of the use of VMI or other UIG by or on behalf of journalists, editors or editorial managers of MGN. The individuals of central importance are:
5. i. Marcus Partington, who was a qualified solicitor and in-house lawyer at The People from 1997 and then at the Mirror from 2002, then became Deputy Group Legal Director of TM plc in April 2007 and Group Legal Director of TM plc from 2014 to 2021.
6. ii. Paul Vickers, who qualified as a barrister but after other corporate employment became Company Secretary and Group Legal Director of MGN in December 1992 and held the same positions (including being a main board director from 1994) at TM plc from 1999 to 2014.
7. iii. Sly Bailey, who was Chief Executive Officer of TM plc from February 2003 to June 2012
8. iv. Vijay Vaghela, the Group Finance Director of Trinity, then TM plc, from May 2003 to February 2019
9. v. David Grigson, who became a director of TM plc in January 2012 and then its chairman from 29 May 2012 until May 2018.
10. e. Whether any of those individuals turned a blind eye to illegal or unlawful conduct at the three national newspapers and concealed it from the other members of the board, TM plc's shareholders and the public.

Further on this explains the claimants position:

1. Put very shortly, the claimants' approach is to rely and build upon the findings of Mann J in Gulati, namely that phone hacking and other UIG were used in an extensive and habitual way across all three national MGN titles during the period 1999-2006, and that certain individuals and PIs were culpable in that regard. In 2017, MGN admitted that the findings made by Mann J apply in respect of all the newspaper desks at all three newspapers.
2. Since the Gulati trial, much more documentary evidence has come to light – *including documents that should have been disclosed by MGN for that trial but were not disclosed – to support the findings previously made. The claimants say that the evidence now goes further, and justifies the same conclusions being reached in relation to earlier and later periods of time. They argue that in view of (1) the Gulati findings, (2) the further evidence that does exist, (3) the guilty knowledge of the legal department and the board, (4) the culpable failure of MGN to preserve or produce documentary evidence and (5) its failure to call witnesses who might have been able to confirm or refute the claimants' cases based on suspicious publications or activities, the court should infer that all MGN's published articles were the product of phone-hacking or other UIG, and that PI invoices evidence such wrongful activities.

_

I wanted this in a post of its own, as its important given the comments on settling, costs etc

MGN explained in case management conferences preceding this trial that it was now unwilling to settle claims because it wanted certain key issues to be decided by the court, which could have a significant effect on the way that other claims will then be settled.

MGN explained in case management conferences preceding this trial that it was now unwilling to settle claims because it wanted certain key issues to be decided by the court, which could have a significant effect on the way that other claims will then be settled.

So in other words @Cakester MGN thought they could bully other claimants if the judgement went their way in to taking little to no money.

Now they know they have to continue to pay out.

If they go bust so be it.

I think it's something like 95% of criminal prosecutions are brought by CPS but you can bring private prosecutions as company/individual.

I think that what Post office was doing during post office scandal - it was a department within post office proceeding with prosecutions in at least some cases- and what RSCPA does with animal cruelty cases they investigate and then bring prosecutions - sometime police then cps do them but overtimes it RSPCA even gathering information and proceeding to prosecutions.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/investigatingcruelty/process#:~:text=The%20police%20and%20Crown%20Prosecution,closely%20with%20them%20on%20investigations.

Civil case it's balance of probabilities - criminal cases you need evidence.

I don't think private prosecutions are an easy step to take either financially or legally which is probably a good thing - to avoid malicious prosecutions but to have avenue if let down by the system.

I did think MET police had publicly said they were now going to look again at hacking based of this court finding.

I see it as a dig at Wales.

Yup, I thought it odd posters were commenting about settlement as they didn't;t offer to any of the 100 claimants part of this, before trial. This is because they have paid out £100 million already, and with so many more to come, yes they need to know what they're up for. Reach plc own MGN, and Reach is worth only £250 million. This is a lot of money, even for them. With 100 claimants, I guess they thought, let's see with test cases if we are going to be liable or not, we can't just keep paying out. NGN and ANL may have more money at their disposal, I don't think either have offered to settle with latest cases brought though. Not certain.

Hyperbole? One thread with mostly well informed comment and discussion. Sharing of analysis from legal experts and others who are invested for the right reason.

Much different to the repeating of Piers Morgan ?Bowyer and other commentators whose purpose is to exploit for their own benefit.

Compare with the almost 7000 posts on Omid Scobie book, this includes the 1000 posts under the title '2 racist royals?' Much hyperbole amongst those thousands of posts.

Interesting! I was wondering if I was the only one thinking it might be a dig at (
Prince of) Wales

Yes I think I am. I think I was referring to the judgement with NGN, where the ‘secret agreement’ was described by the judge as lacking credibility

Interestingly, it looks like it’s the same judge this time with MGN? Justice Fancourt.

Did anyone follow Gulati v MGN from 2015?

"I don't think it's about the money for Harry, more the vindication, but also a lot about the treatment he feels was unfairly given to his wife. One way or the other it's a money pit."
This relates to cases up to 2011, long before Harry met Meghan (unless you know otherwise).
The papers were actually quite nice to Meghan (at first, anyway).
The RF allowed her far more privileges than they allowed Catherine, (being invited to Sandringham, etc before they were married, etc).

In March 2005, at their peak, shares in Reach PLC which owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror and the People were worth £6.72. Earlier on Friday, they were valued at 71p.
Interestingly, after the judgment the share price rose 4%, perhaps because the damages awarded to the prince were not as high as he had wanted. Or perhaps it was because the decision offered "clarity", as MGN put it.

I've just looked, they are now below 71p. Just.

There are 100 people waiting in the wings with their claims. As a PP said... Reach are worth £250M and have paid out £100M in claims and costs. Last month they announced 450 job cuts.

themessygarden

Considering dragons are mythical, you would wonder why he used that analogy.

I wondered whether he was alluding to Shakespeare's Henry V:

Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!

(Really not sure about that Oxford comma but it was quick C&P - in case memory served me badly - and the source probably knows better than I.
Apols to any SPAG purists if it's incorrect)