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'.

Indeed. MGN is facing a tidal wave of payouts.

I don't think those cheerleading for Harry and the other claimants to be slapped with costs orders realise the significance of the hit on MGN. And the implications for the owners of their beloved dailies, the Sun and the Daily Mail.

That said, MGN do have one reason to rejoice - here's the FT (the last remaining serious daily in the UK)'s take:

Prince Harry’s claim was heard alongside those brought by Coronation Street actors Nikki Sanderson and Michael Turner, and Fiona Wightman, ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse. Turner was awarded a total of £31,650 in damages, but the judge ruled that Sanderson and Wightman had brought their claims too late. Shares in Reach PLC, the parent company for what was Mirror Group Newspapers, jumped 7 per cent on Friday following the decision, which is expected to reduce the number of other claims against the group. Reach said that, as a result of the ruling, “all claims issued after 31 October 2020 are now likely to be dismissed other than where exceptional circumstances apply”. The payout was lower than had been claimed by Prince Harry, and will now be used as a basis to calculate damages for the remaining cases not cut off by the time limitation.

Still, MGN have paid £100m already, and they're going to cough up quite a few more. Not sure where there share price is now, or what the near-term outlook is - I suspect they're not exactly featuring on any analysts' buy lists!

And as to Prince Harry and future possible costs orders, I suspect he isn't losing sleep over them. And rightly so: he's got more than what he wanted already.

https://www.ft.com/content/b30bca02-7a1f-4123-937e-087fb4498abc

Your comment about papers being nice to Meghan is a LIE!

She was abused both racially and as a woman from the start.

It is a perfect illustration of what happens when posters and others both here and elsewhere make things up and those being repeated again and again as fact. Of course the truth doesn't suit the agenda. Sad that women on here take great pleasure in trying to bring another woman down. So much for solidarity.

I will copy and paste from a post I put up the other day to clear this rubbish myth up:
''Remember the headline in the Sun in 2016 “Harry girl’s on Pornhub”? Even as far back as 2016 the media and social media was being called out from sexism and racial undertones when commenting about Meghan.
How can the headline in the same year 2016 in the Daily Mail ''Harry's girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother revealed - so will he be dropping by for tea?'' be forgotten?''

Folks,

This is the best thread there's been on MN in months.

Mostly informative, constructive, elevated discourse between mature, thoughtful people.

Some are desperate to taint this with puerile and taunty derails.

I suggest we don't take the bait.

The payout was lower than had been claimed by Prince Harry, and will now be used as a basis to calculate damages for the remaining cases not cut off by the time limitation.
Because it's based on each claim he won, the total was for all 33 claims and he won on 15, so the costs will only be for the 15. The basis used to calculate damages was one used in the Gulati judgement, which was back in 2015.
From the judgement:
The most obviously relevant authority on the right level of quantum for various types of phone hacking, and for UIG conducted through PIs, is Gulati.
I bear in mind that the Gulati levels were set in 2015 and in 2023 the value of money has been reduced as a result of a short period of high inflation.

Or, some have other views? You mustn't take it all so personally we are allowed to disagree you know.

He brought over 140 odd claims, succeeded with 15. That's not dragon slaying by any stretch of the imagination.

@Janiie this part of your post is incorrect.

He brought over 140 odd claims, succeeded with 15. That's not dragon slaying by any stretch of the imagination.

Only 33 claims were tested in Court with both the MGN and PH legal team choosing half the claims each.

Yes thanks for clarifying yet another inaccuracy. This was a 'test case' before proceeding with the 100 other claimants, and the rest of these 4 claimants claims. Harry had 148, and tested 33. I have posted more than once how they chose claims for each claimant. It's in the judgement.

Rachel is not very bright.

Totally agree

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

Works for me if they go out of business, Roussette, though obviously I'm sorry about the job losses - many, no doubt, blameless staff

Actually I thought news groups had insurance against being sued, but probably they won't cover them for their own illegality?

Agree with this, hence why I’m not jumping for joy. Plus media diversity is important. Though on balance I think the sustained attacks on the free press by multiple sources are absolutely terrible, even though in some cases like phone hacking the tabloids dug their own graves.

Yes, I'm not keen on loss of media diversity either.

I'm absolutely furious at the slimy, spying, kompromat-seeking, illegally operating gits who have imperilled this.

@Puzzledandpissedoff I think dishonesty or illegality can impact the professional insurance, there are exemptions to payouts but it will depend. It would I assume affect premiums each payout they claimed for though?

I think society will be fine without tabloids and gossip rags, we don't need media like that.

As the damages awarded were based on Gulati v MGN, I thought I would post this for anyone interested in how they worked out damages. Gulati v MGN was actress Shobna Gulati, and 7 other claimants:

https://inforrm.org/2015/05/22/case-law-gulati-v-mgn-ltd-a-landmark-decision-on-the-quantum-of-privacy-damages-hugh-tomlinson-qc-and-sara-mansoori/

David Sherborne appeared for the claimants in Gulati v Min also, here is a list of damages:
Sadie Frost £260,250, Robert Ashworth £201,250,Paul Gascogine £188,250,Lucy Taggart £157,250, Shane Richie £155,000, Shobna Gulati £117,500, Alan Yentob £85,000, Lauren Alcorn £72,500.

The breakdown of those awards is very interesting.

I may be misremember-but didn't the Mirror played a role in bring spot light to Rochdale child sex abuse ring scandal?

I know this wasn't the Mail - but they did the whole Steven Laurance headline of sue us we are wrong headline.

Phone hacking does need to stop and where happen be prosecuted - but I do think it's a legitimate worry that what little investigative journalist there is left could be adversely impacted.

I look at USA with George Santos scandal and wonder what the fuck the press and democrats were playing at not finding that shit out before he got elected - I what a press that asks questions but doesn't break the law to do so.

a slight derail, but David Sherbone is so cute!!! and clever. Just a bit taller and I might fancy him😂

He reminds me of David Dickenson

Giving me Barry Manilow vibes ..
Not in a good way

They did that with Steven Lawrence and also hacked his mothers phone. She said she felt they had used her sons death for publicity. They are also pretty racist most of the time, yet use the one good thing they did to justify everything else. But that does not excuse conducting a hate campaign against someone to drum up money for one piece of investigative journalism in 20 years, while you were also conducting criminal activities against a grieving mother.

George Santos was a Republican congressman. Not a Democrat.

oh no, why did you say that! Now I can't unsee it😭

I like clever though so maybe I'll just squint..

guys stoppppppppppppppp it.😭