Prince Harry is suing papers as a moral crusade, not because he has evidence, claims Mirror

The Duke of Sussex has been accused of suing tabloid newspapers as part of a crusade to “reform the British media” without evidence to support his claims.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) said the Duke’s “unique role” in public life did not exempt him from the burden of proof.

In closing submissions, the tabloid group said it was impossible not to have “enormous sympathy” for Prince Harry given the media intrusion he has been subjected to throughout his life.

However, it said he had failed to identify any examples of phone hacking or unlawful information gathering at its newspapers.

And it accused him of bringing the litigation “as a vehicle to seek to reform the British media” as part of his ongoing crusade.

‘Vast number’ of articles

The Duke sued Mirror Group Newspapers over unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, citing 148 articles he alleged had been obtained illegally.

The newspaper group acknowledged that a “vast number” of articles had been written about Prince Harry during the relevant period, between 1996 and 2011, by the Mirror titles but also by the rest of the tabloid press and all other media organisations.

“Establishing that an individual is a victim of general and widespread media intrusion leading to negative effects at the hands of the press is not the same as demonstrating that he/she is a victim of unlawful voicemail interception and other unlawful information gathering by three specific newspaper titles,” it said.

“The Duke’s unique role in public life does not change the underlying position in these proceedings: that the burden of proof to establish voicemail interception and/or other unlawful information gathering lies squarely with him.”

It said the Duke’s claim had “failed to withstand scrutiny” and that he had failed to identify any evidence.

“The true purpose of this litigation appears not to be to achieve compensation for unlawful activity by MGN, but instead it forms part of the Duke’s campaign to ‘reform’ the British press,” it argued.

“In seeking to hold one element of the tabloid press to account for intrusion the Duke believes he has suffered at the hands of all press, irrespective of their involvement or lack thereof in unlawful information gathering, he has advanced a claim which is wildly overstated and substantially baseless.”

One admitted unlawful incident

MGN is arguing that the Duke should be awarded only £500 in damages for one admitted instance of unlawful information gathering.

Its barrister, Andrew Green KC, said in written submissions: “There is only one occasion of admitted unlawful information gathering in respect of the Duke of Sussex, in February 2004.”

He continued: “In this case the Duke of Sussex should be awarded a maximum of £500, given the single invoice naming him concerns inquiries on an isolated occasion, and the small sum on the invoice (£75) suggests inquiries were limited.”

However, the Duke’s barrister told the High Court there was “hard evidence” that unlawful information gathering was “widespread” at MGN.

David Sherborne, who is also representing three other high-profile claimants, said unlawful methods of obtaining information were “the stock in trade at these newspapers across the entire period”, describing them as the “modus operandi” of journalists.

“These methods were the tried and tested tools of the tabloid trade,” he told the court.

In closing submissions, he drew attention to the existence of the Duke’s mobile phone number on a device belonging to a previous head of news at the Sunday Mirror as a “very significant feature” in the case.

The barrister claimed MGN’s board and legal department, “the very people whose duty it was to run this public company”, were “well aware” of unlawful information gathering being widespread.

Piers Morgan singled out

Mr Sherborne said the judge could draw “adverse” inferences from MGN’s “extraordinary decision” not to call “key witnesses” during the trial.

He singled out former editor Piers Morgan, who has not appeared in court, saying: “Rather than come and give evidence to meet (the allegations), he has chosen instead to confine his comments to outside the courtroom,” adding that MGN’s failure to call Mr Morgan and other journalists  “leaves enormous holes, we say fatal holes, in the defendant’s case”.

Prince Harry revealed in court, during two days on the witness stand, that he was motivated to sue the tabloids in order to protect his wife, Meghan, and to “somehow find a way to stop the abuse, intrusion and hate” he said was directed towards them.

He used his 55-page witness statement to make sweeping statements about the state of the British press, having previously stated that he would make it his life’s work to reform the industry.

“Our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” he said.

“Democracy fails when your press fails to scrutinise and hold the government accountable, and instead choose to get into bed with them so they can ensure the status quo.”

The Duke launched an excoriating attack on journalism, a profession he said needed to be “saved” by exposing those who had “stolen or hijacked the privileges and powers of the press.”

He described the media as an “unbelievably dangerous place”, claiming that even the Government was “scared of alienating” newspapers “because position is power.”