Prince Harry trial – latest: Piers Morgan ‘lies at the heart’ of claims against Mirror, court told

The claims are contained in Mullin’s latest memoir, Didn’t You Use To Be Chris Mullin?, which is being serialised exclusively in The Independent:

The four claimants in the trial have made “extraordinarily wide claims” about phone hacking and unlawful information gathering, Mirror Group Newspapers’ lawyer Andrew Green KC told the court.

“The claimants now seek to make sweeping allegations of unlawful information gathering against a vast number of third party suppliers, private investigators or otherwise,” Mr Green said.

“Despite the obvious seriousness of these allegations, and the range of third parties against whom they are made, the claimants have served barely any evidence to support them, or the other claims of unlawful information gathering made against third party suppliers.”

The barrister added: “In the vast majority of cases, the allegations are denied and no evidence supporting them has been served.”

At the start of the case, an MGN spokesperson said: “Where historical wrongdoing has taken place we have made admissions, take full responsibility and apologise unreservedly, but we will vigorously defend against allegations of wrongdoing where our journalists acted lawfully.”

The board of Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) had a “vested interest” in the “growing” knowledge of alleged unlawful information-gathering not becoming public, the High Court has been told.

Laywer David Sherborne claimed such practices were authorised “at the highest levels” of the company, alleging that “the knowledge of the board grew as the narrative progressed” amid the “growing body of knowledge about the widespread activity”.

Mr Sherborne said it had to be borne in mind “the ramifications” for shareholders if this came out, adding: “They have a very clear vested interest in this not becoming public and no-one being able to bring a claim.”

Lawyers for the publisher say they have provided evidence from board members denying awareness of unlawful information-gathering activities.

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, said in written submissions the duke and others had made “serious allegations” of dishonesty with legal arguments that “are far from adequate”, adding: “The claimants have not provided any direct evidence of a member of the board or legal department making a false or dishonest statement.”

Piers Morgan “lies at the heart” of claims against its publisher over alleged unlawful information-gathering, the High Court has been told.

In the second day of the trial, David Sherborne, representing the Duke of Sussex and other individuals bringing legal challenges against Mirror Group Newspapers, began detailing instances of such alleged activity.

“What we have, we say, is the direct involvement of Mr Morgan in a number of these incidents,” the lawyer said.

“Mr Morgan lies right at the heart of this in a number of ways. He was a very hands-on editor, also very closely connected to the board.”

Mr Morgan, who was the Mirror’s editor between 1995 and 2004, has previously denied involvement in phone hacking. He told the BBC this week: “I think phone hacking is completely wrong and shouldn’t have been happening, and it was lazy journalists being lazy.”

A front-page Daily Mirror article in 1999 which claimed Prince Michael of Kent was in £2.5m debt to a bank was “obtained illegally”, the High Court has been told.

“At the time of the Prince Michael of Kent story, [the paper] was edited by Piers Morgan,” said lawyer David Sherborne, adding that he was “a very hands-on editor” with “a close connection to the board” at Mirror Group Newspapers.

“The story had been published with sufficient confidence in the face of a denial from Prince Michael himself,” Mr Sherborne said, alleging that it had been “obtained illegally” using private investigators.

He continued that when Prince Michael raised a legal complaint against MGN, Mr Morgan said the allegation came from “an impeccable source who has an intimate knowledge” of the royal’s finances.

Mr Sherborne said: “Mr Morgan, and the MGN lawyers he consulted before writing this letter, knew full well that the information had been obtained unlawfully and that the criminal law had in fact been breached, and the ‘impeccable source’ they referred to was in fact (private investigator Jonathan) Rees.”

MGN later settled Prince Michael’s claim, agreeing to publish an apology and pay his legal costs, Mr Sherborne said. Mr Morgan has previously denied involvement in phone hacking.

In the second day of the trial, barrister David Sherborne alleged that it is “inconceivable” that Piers Morgan and several other editors at Mirror Group Newspapers were unaware of certain activities alleged by the claimants.

“Even people you would expect to be ensuring honesty … [were] themselves so bound up in this wrongdoing,” he told the High Court. “It’s no wonder it was so widespread … it is no wonder it was so successfully covered up by the PLC.”

“We say the case goes higher than just the journalists,” Mr Sherborne added. “The condoning of these activities meant these journalists were able to continue them at this widespread level … At all levels, the defendant’s organisation was concealing unlawful activity because it was well aware of how damaging it was.

In written submissions, Mr Sherborne continued: “It is inconceivable that this information, which was readily available on MGN’s system, was not known by the editors, Piers Morgan, Tina Weaver and Mark Thomas, the managing editors, and the legal department … and the board.

“Despite that, neither the legal department nor the board took any action to prevent the continued use of such techniques by MGN journalists.”

One of the four claimants, former Coronation Street actor Nikki Sanderson says she experienced abuse in the street following “false insinuations” in articles published by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), the High Court was told yesterday.

In court documents, her lawyers claim she experienced “unusual telephone and media-related activity” which was consistent with the “unauthorised accessing of her voicemails and other unlawful information gathering”, with private information appearing in newspapers with “no legitimate explanation” as to how.

Mr Sherborne, the actress’s barrister, said she said it was “‘scary’ feeling like she was always being watched, and ‘upsetting’ that MGN’s conduct caused the lines between her public and private life to blur, making her believe that she was ‘public property’.”

“The impact of the stories on Nikki Sanderson was aggravated by their false insinuations that she was promiscuous, causing her great upset and giving rise to her being subjected to mental and physical abuse, having people shout at her in the street calling her a ‘wh***’, ‘sl**’ or ‘sl**’ and even being physically assaulted on numerous occasions,” Mr Sherborne said.

“It gave rise to her feeling in a constant state of paranoia, distrusting everyone around her.”

In its trial defence, the publisher says Ms Sanderson’s claim is brought too late, but “unreservedly apologises” over four payments made to private investigators which it admits are evidence of instructions to unlawfully obtain her private information.

The publisher also claims that evidence does not suggest Ms Sanderson’s phone was successfully hacked.

For those just joining us on the blog, here is a quick recap of yesterday’s opening to the trial:

Barrister David Sherborne, acting on behalf of Prince Harry and three other celebrities, said that the case featured unlawful activities on an “industrial scale carried out across three newspapers over a period of about 20 years or so”.

He added: “It was a flood of illegality. But worse still, this flood was being authorised and approved of by senior executives.”

And the Duke of Sussex is said to have feared for the safety of his former partner Chelsy Davy as a result of press intrusion, which he blamed for the breakdown of their relationship.

As the second day of the trial gets under way, the High Court has been told that unlawful information-gathering activities were authorised “at the highest levels” within Mirror Group Newspapers.

David Sherborne, barrister for Prince Harry and others bringing claims against the publisher, said one of the “most seriously troubling features” of their cases was the allegation that those responsible for management and finances of the company “were well aware of what was going on”.

In written arguments, Mr Sherborne claimed “the systemic and widespread use of PIs by MGN journalists to unlawfully obtain private information was authorised at senior levels”, including desk heads, editors, managing editors and senior executives.

Lawyer David Sherborne, who is representing those accusing the Mirror publisher of unlawful information gathering, has been pictured arriving at the High Court this morning.