In a major victory, Prince Harry has successfully taken on Mirror Group Newspapers in the High Court.
He accused the media outlet of gathering information about him in an unlawful fashion and has now been vindicated in court. The judgment held that there was "widespread and habitual" use of phone hacking at The Mirror, before the Duke of Sussex was awarded more than £140,000 in damages.
Harry’s lawyer then went further than that outside of the court when he declared:
“This case is not just about hacking - it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behaviour, followed by cover ups and destruction of evidence, the shocking scale of which can only be revealed through these proceedings.”
The actor (and himself a victim of phone hacking), Steve Coogan, spoke to the BBC in the wake of the judgment and continued to pile pressure on media, politicians and the police. He said that the judgment demonstrated that newspaper editors have a widespread contempt for the Leveson Inquiry (a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press).
By this point, it has been estimated that the Mirror and other media outlets have spent more than £100 million on legal fees and payouts because of this and other hacking cases. It begs the question: if this continues to be a problem, then what can be done to maintain a free press, but a free press that also respects basic norms around privacy? The sums of money that have been paid to victims has surely made a dent, but is ultimately small change to someone like Rupert Murdoch and other media barons who use their position and deep pockets to pedal political leverage.
Instead, eyes must now turn to the police so that they can investigate those who appear to have engaged in criminal conduct. Should Piers Morgan be a media personality appearing in front of the nation, or should he be behind bars because of what he did when he was editor of the Daily Mirror?
Both Prince Harry and Steve Coogan have now become part of a wider chorus requesting a full police investigation. A statement by the Metropolitan Police said that it would “carefully consider the civil judgment handed down today at the High Court. There is no ongoing investigation.”
This is a weak response. There is already enough in the Prince Harry case alone to prompt a criminal investigation, and evidence from others demonstrates that potentially illegal activities were commonplace.
Political change is also required. Ultimately, the Leveson Inquiry only resulted in the formation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). That name is a misnomer because instead of being ‘independent’, IPSO is funded by newspapers and has proven itself to be toothless in the face of clear breaches.
Through all the court cases and payouts, real change will only come when those with the means to change things step in. When massive media outlets continue to hold sway over those in positions of power, that hope seems far away, but victories in the courts continue to slowly turn the tide.
This week on the podcast, the Supreme Court returns to consider an employment dispute within the context of the gig economy. Are Deliveroo drivers in an employment relationship with the company? To answer this question, the Justices had to consider both the written contract and what happens in practice.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2023-uksc-43/
Make a difference today,
Marcus
This is why we cannot let a foreign power have any ownership of The Telegraph. We only have to look at the murderers in Saudi, the Hamas links to Qatar, and now the growing pro-Putin relationships to see the potential interference in our country’s affairs.