“Prince Harry victorious in phone hacking case against Mirror Group.”
The recent High Court ruling regarding Prince Harry’s phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers holds significant implications. Confirming Prince Harry, along with his associates, fell victim to hacking, the case exposed Mirror titles’ use of illicit methods to access information. Will this result in criminal proceedings? The Metropolitan Police, considering the judgment, faces the higher burden of proof in a potential criminal trial. Prince Harry desires this route.
Questions arise about ongoing phone hacking, even during the Leveson Inquiry, where senior newspaper executives claimed ignorance of such illegal behavior. This includes former Mirror CEO Sly Bailey, whom the judge stated was aware of the happenings. The ruling sparks curiosity about other newspaper groups’ actions and methods.
Prince Harry pursues legal action against News Group and Associated Newspapers, owners of The Sun, News of the World, and the Daily Mail. These distinct cases involve different evidence, yet the judge highlights Prince Harry’s role as a pivotal storyline.
The articles breaking the law date back to a time when tabloids reigned, hungry for exclusives about the royals. Mirror Group’s newspapers, seeking scoops, didn’t hesitate to break the law. Today’s media landscape is altered, with declining newspaper readership amid social media dominance and decreased advertising.
Mirror Group’s shares peaked in 2005 but have significantly plummeted, emphasizing the struggles facing newspaper groups. The judgment influenced Reach PLC’s shares, although the damages awarded were lower than expected. This signifies the ongoing crisis challenging the press’s survival.
Reach PLC, valued at around £250 million, has already paid hefty amounts for phone hacking and faces further costs, including payouts to other claimants. They’ve encountered financial challenges, evident in job cuts and economic pressures.
Prince Harry’s belief in media bias against him was evident during the trial. Discrepancies between court proceedings and some media reporting were apparent, possibly influencing public perception. The judgment marks a significant legal milestone, strengthening Prince Harry’s ongoing quest for justice.
