this is bbc news. prince harry is about to learn the verdict in his phone—hacking lawsuit against mirror group newspapers. the duke of sussex became the first senior british royal for 130 years to appear as a witness in court this summer, when he sued the publisher for damages. live now to tom symonds in central london. tom. it seems like a long time ago prince harry _ tom. it seems like a long time ago prince harry was _ tom. it seems like a long time ago prince harry was in _ tom. it seems like a long time ago prince harry was in court _ tom. it seems like a long time ago prince harry was in court this - prince harry was in court this summer, it suddenly was a lot warmer. these pavements were full of the world's press and a very unusual spectacle, a very senior royal giving evidence in a witness box in a british court, something that, as you said, hasn't happened for more

than 100 years. the reason for that, thatis than 100 years. the reason for that, that is probably quite a deep, dark story but prince harry has always maintained he was prevented from taking legal action against newspapers by buckingham palace. that they didn't want him giving evidence in the witness box went the argument. of course, buckingham palace denied that. it has tried to settle claims here and there when it could come against the many newspapers who have been involved in this long saga. just to give you some of the background to this, before we get into what's happening here today, back in 2006, it became known that newspapers had been accessing people's mobile phone voicemails. most of us don't leave voicemails. most of us don't leave voicemails any more, do we? we leave text messages or we do video calls. but in the 90s, and 2000s of the people often left voice mail messages and journalists worked out that because the pin numbers were not changed very often, they could

access those voice mail messages and that would be a very good source of information for stories about well—known people. celebrities. these were the days before social media, when celebrities put their own information on the internet for everybody to see. that was first realised byjournalists in 2006. the guardian did some coverage which really brought the thing into the open and there was a trial in 2011, 2012, in whichjournalists open and there was a trial in 2011, 2012, in which journalists and senior editors from news group newspapers, the publisher of the sun and the news of the world which was the subject of the trial, they went to prison convicted of phone hacking. things went quiet. here at the court, there has been a long, long battle between dozens and dozens, hundreds, infact, of alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful practices by newspapers to get compensation for breaches of their privacy. we will talk a little bit in a minute about the principles involved. but prince

harry decided that he wanted to, very publicly, take on these cases himself. he regards himself as a victim of all of these breaches of his privacy and he has said that he wants to prove in court, without settling, before a trial, that his privacy was breached. i'll talk in a minute about some of the things he said in court earlier this year. that leads us to today. today, we are outside a modern part of the high court, where the hearings were held in the summer where prince harry gave evidence. here, thejudge is about to start, if not has started, reading out some comments he will make for the next half an hour or so about the judgment he has come to. by the end of that period, we expect to see a copy of the judgment. the issue for you and me will be working out what has happened and who has won, because thatis happened and who has won, because

that is not a simple, simple thing to say. what did prince harry claim in court? he said that his privacy was breached and that, in the words of his barrister, david sherborne, who has led a lot of these cases in court, that there was widespread, habitual and unlawful activities by journalists, authorised at the highest level. a side bar here, the newspaper group, mirror group newspapers, which owns the mirror mirror and sunday mirror admitted that private investigators hacked phones and got hold of private information. and has admitted that some journalists information. and has admitted that somejournalists paid information. and has admitted that some journalists paid for that information in pursuit of stories. what the company has not admitted is executives knew that was going on right up to board level, that lawyers in the company's legal team who would be involved in any practices like that, working out if they were legal, that they didn't know. and the company says editors

were not aware of what was going on. that is one major part of what this judgment today is going to be about. the other part of it, the generic case, if you want some jargon, is whether four people had their private information effectively stolen, and effectively their privacy was breached. prince harry was one of them. he claims more than 140 newspaper articles going back to his very early life as a young guy, dating girlfriends, being in the army, that during that period, those newspaper articles breached his privacy. this is some of the things he said in court in the summer. he said he felt he couldn't trust anybody in his personal circle, which was an awful feeling for him. especially at such a young age. he said he had experienced hostility from the press since he was born. of course, he was born into a family deeply troubled by the death of his mother, princess diana. he said at one point, perhaps the most telling

thing he said in court, was that he wanted the courts, he was giving evidence in a court, to put a stop to this madness by ruling that this sort of infringement of his privacy had happened. mirror group newspapers have obviously denied that its executives were involved. as you said today, reiterated one of the statements it has made throughout this process. it says aware historical wrongdoing has taken place, we have made admissions. they admitted what they did. we take full responsibility, and we apologise unreservedly. but the company has made clear, that is what it was doing during the summer in court, that it would vigorously defend itself against allegations of wrongdoing where ourjournalists acted unlawfully. it says mirror group newspapers is a very different company, committed to acting with integrity and our objective in this trial is to allow the business and our journalists to trial is to allow the business and ourjournalists to move forward from events that took place many years ago. that is going to be tricky because this is a company that has paid out more than £100 million in

settlements to victims of unlawful press intrusion. that is to 600 claimants. there are about 80 claimants. there are about 80 claimants more, i'm told, who are looking at the outcome of this case to decide whether to continue with their cases. their cases are effectively held up in the courts by the fact that this judgment has been so long awaited. let's take another look at the legal principles involved with this. a senior partner is with me, a media law firm, philip. i am sure you do other things but media law is what you specialise in. let's do the really basic questions, philippa. this is a civil not court, what is the difference?— civil not court, what is the difference? , ., , difference? there won't be any prosecution. — difference? there won't be any prosecution, there _ difference? there won't be any prosecution, there is _ difference? there won't be any prosecution, there is no - difference? there won't be any| prosecution, there is no chance difference? there won't be any i prosecution, there is no chance of going _ prosecution, there is no chance of going to _ prosecution, there is no chance of going to jail, unless somebody purges— going to jail, unless somebody purges them self. this is about financial— purges them self. this is about financial compensation. it is an opportunity for the public, and in this case, — opportunity for the public, and in this case, celebrities, and prince harry, _ this case, celebrities, and prince harry, to — this case, celebrities, and prince harry, to actually bring a case. the criminal_ harry, to actually bring a case. the criminal courts are about police and our crown _ criminal courts are about police and our crown prosecution service, who

decide _ our crown prosecution service, who decide what — our crown prosecution service, who decide what cases will be brought. it is decide what cases will be brought. it is an_ decide what cases will be brought. it is an interesting use of words here, when i am trying to report in this case, i use the word is unlawful rather than illegal, because what has been done here potentially, if the judge finds for these claimants, is not necessary a breach of a single particular law but a breach of their rights, isn't it? give us an idea of what rights could have been breached by the newspapers. could have been breached by the newsnapers-_ could have been breached by the newsuaers. , ., . newspapers. everybody has a basic leual riaht newspapers. everybody has a basic legal right to _ newspapers. everybody has a basic legal right to privacy. _ newspapers. everybody has a basic legal right to privacy. it _ newspapers. everybody has a basic legal right to privacy. it is - newspapers. everybody has a basic legal right to privacy. it is a - newspapers. everybody has a basic legal right to privacy. it is a rite - legal right to privacy. it is a rite of reasonable privacy in the circumstances. some things trump that, _ circumstances. some things trump that, like _ circumstances. some things trump that, like freedom of speech. this principle _ that, like freedom of speech. this principle here that people should not be _ principle here that people should not be entitled to go on to phones to actually— not be entitled to go on to phones to actually take information when people _ to actually take information when people do not know that is happening. that is a key part of the law in_ happening. that is a key part of the law in the _ happening. that is a key part of the law in the uk, and a safeguard. gf law in the uk, and a safeguard. course, the law in the uk, and a safeguard. of course, the newspapers have rights, too, to report on those problem people. they say there is a lot of public interest in knowing what, especially like somebody like prince harry, effectively receiving money

from all of us, what they are doing, what their lives are like, and if they have done wrong, that they have a right to report that. that is the balancing act, isn't it? it a right to report that. that is the balancing act, isn't it?— balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much s0- — balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much s0- if— balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much so. if it— balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much so. if it is— balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much so. if it is in _ balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much so. if it is in the _ balancing act, isn't it? it is, very much so. if it is in the public- much so. if it is in the public interest, _ much so. if it is in the public interest, stories should come out but it_ interest, stories should come out but it is— interest, stories should come out but it is a — interest, stories should come out but it is a question of how that is done _ but it is a question of how that is done. , , ., ., ., , ., done. this is a trial. how unusual is it in the — done. this is a trial. how unusual is it in the process _ done. this is a trial. how unusual is it in the process of _ done. this is a trial. how unusual is it in the process of phone - is it in the process of phone hacking claims, pretty much an industry in this court for years, for there to have been trial with people giving evidence and a judge deciding at the end? it is people giving evidence and a 'udge deciding at the end?* deciding at the end? it is very unusual because _ deciding at the end? it is very unusual because most - deciding at the end? it is very unusual because most of - deciding at the end? it is very unusual because most of the | deciding at the end? it is very - unusual because most of the cases, they have _ unusual because most of the cases, they have been hundreds that have been settled, often very much closed to the _ been settled, often very much closed to the doors of the court, some of the newspapers have had strategies where _ the newspapers have had strategies where they would bring the case and take it _ where they would bring the case and take it forward but right at the last minute, settle. it is definitely an unusual case, particularly this long after the event — particularly this long after the event. ., ., ., , event. you would have seen the reporting- _ event. you would have seen the reporting. there _ event. you would have seen the reporting. there were _ event. you would have seen the reporting. there were no - event. you would have seen the i reporting. there were no cameras event. you would have seen the - reporting. there were no cameras in court, you wouldn't have seen the evidence but you would have seen the

reporting of prince harry's testimony during the summer. what did you make of it as somebody who is a legal expert watching this as evidence? ., , , ., . ., evidence? certainly, you can tell the de th evidence? certainly, you can tell the depth of _ evidence? certainly, you can tell the depth of feeling _ evidence? certainly, you can tell the depth of feeling and - evidence? certainly, you can tell the depth of feeling and the - evidence? certainly, you can tell. the depth of feeling and the volume of stories— the depth of feeling and the volume of stories that have come through. the implication of him saying that the only— the implication of him saying that the only way this information could have come — the only way this information could have come out was through these means _ have come out was through these means. some of it is very concrete and some — means. some of it is very concrete and some of— means. some of it is very concrete and some of it is a bit more... you have _ and some of it is a bit more... you have to _ and some of it is a bit more... you have tojoin — and some of it is a bit more... you have tojoin the jigsaw and some of it is a bit more... you have to join the jigsaw puzzle together. but the key is that the judge _ together. but the key is that the judge is— together. but the key is that the judge is not going to decide has their— judge is not going to decide has their definitely been phone hacking, he's actually going to decide on the balance _ he's actually going to decide on the balance of— he's actually going to decide on the balance of probability that that is the case — balance of probability that that is the case. that is the key today, doesn't — the case. that is the key today, doesn't mean to say that there definitely has or not, it isjust what — definitely has or not, it isjust what the _ definitely has or not, it isjust what the evidence shows. that definitely has or not, it is 'ust what the evidence shows. that is a crucial point. _ what the evidence shows. that is a crucial point, isn't _ what the evidence shows. that is a crucial point, isn't it? _ what the evidence shows. that is a crucial point, isn't it? people- what the evidence shows. that is a crucial point, isn't it? people will. crucial point, isn't it? people will be aware of criminal courts where there is a jury and potentially sending people to prison and that is a much more difficult test, if you like you have to be much more sure about the evidence to send somebody to prison than in this court.

quickly give us an understanding of what the difference is. in a criminal— what the difference is. in a criminal court, _ what the difference is. in a criminal court, the - what the difference is. in a criminal court, the difference is that it — criminal court, the difference is that it has _ criminal court, the difference is that it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. the balance is very much— reasonable doubt. the balance is very much on the individual and the circumstances. if you are going to id circumstances. if you are going to go to— circumstances. if you are going to go to prison, that is such a terrible _ go to prison, that is such a terrible sanction, the court needs to be _ terrible sanction, the court needs to be sure — terrible sanction, the court needs to be sure that that is a likely result, — to be sure that that is a likely result, it _ to be sure that that is a likely result, it is a much higher burden of proof — result, it is a much higher burden of proof i— result, it is a much higher burden of roof. .., . ,, ., result, it is a much higher burden of roof. ., of proof. i will come back to you in a minute. — of proof. i will come back to you in a minute. i — of proof. i will come back to you in a minute, i know— of proof. i will come back to you in a minute, i know it _ of proof. i will come back to you in a minute, i know it is _ of proof. i will come back to you in a minute, i know it is cold, - of proof. i will come back to you in a minute, i know it is cold, i - of proof. i will come back to you in a minute, i know it is cold, i won't| a minute, i know it is cold, i won't let you go away but i have some more questions. but let me explain something a bit more about this case to our audience waiting for this judgment in the prince harry phone hacking and unlawful media practices case, where he claims that in 33 cases initially, 33 stories, that his privacy was breached. they were stories about all elements of his life, for example, his time at sandhurst as a young soldier, his relationship with his brother, his discussions with his brother about his mother's legacy, and really trivial things, as was pointed out

by mirror group newspapers's lawyers during this case about breaking bits of his body when he was in the army and doing assault courses. all stories the newspapers were very keen to report on and no doubt people were keen to read about. he alleged time and time again during this case that he was being followed, thatjournalists knew where he was, they knew information about him that he could not have known, as philippa said, without some sort of additional research going on. phone hacking is alleged to have been one of those pieces of research done by notjournalists generally, though sometimes, but also by private investigators and people who specialise in getting hold of flight details, for example. there was a whole strand of evidence in this court where prince harry was going out at the time with chelsy davy, his girlfriend when he was younger, they were travelling all over the world. she had family in south africa and somehowjournalists knew he would be there and to know

where to be so they could take pictures of him and write stories about him and his relationship with chelsy davy. that is what the substance of the case involving prince harry was but he wasn't the only person bringing claims in this case. four other people were chosen as examples of the kinds of cases that the judge wanted to consider. 0ne that the judge wanted to consider. one that wasn't famous at all, fiona weitzman was the partner of paul whitehouse, the plan of the comedian. the newspapers were interested in him. a very popular show back in the 2000 is in the 90s called the fast show. they were interested in fiona wightman's medical details and she gave evidence in court and she said she thought it was unacceptable to look at a woman's gynaecological cancer and find a way to make it public. that was the allegation that her medical records were obtained or attempts to get her medical records were made by a private investigator.

another person who gave evidence, the test cases, nikki sanderson. an actor who starred in coronation street she described being followed by the paparazzi and been put in a constant state of anxiety. newspaper journalists needed to know where she was about her telling them about them. that had a huge impact on her life. and the fourth of the test cases, kevin turner, also in coronation street, and he said he was often struggling with his fame. and that sometimes journalists turned up and knew where he was, got pictures of him and got information about him. they are all claiming a series of articles and individual amounts of money in damages for all that press intrusion. the key question in the next hour or so is

to work out how much they, as claimants in this case, have won their cases. it will not be a simple guilty, not guilty, as we have heard, this is not a criminal court. let's come back to philippa and ask a bit more. prince harry has 33 articles that are being considered as part of these hearings during the summer. how many do you think he needs to win, the judge fined they were unlawfully obtained, for him to claim victory? it were unlawfully obtained, for him to claim victory?— claim victory? it all depends on some of the — claim victory? it all depends on some of the substance - claim victory? it all depends on some of the substance of- claim victory? it all depends on some of the substance of the l claim victory? it all depends on i some of the substance of the ones where _ some of the substance of the ones where he — some of the substance of the ones where he does claim victory. some of them _ where he does claim victory. some of them publicly will be seen as much more _ them publicly will be seen as much more serious intrusion of his privacy— more serious intrusion of his privacy than others. for harry, just being _ privacy than others. for harry, just being able — privacy than others. for harry, just being able to come here today and have that — being able to come here today and have that decision, if it goes in his favour. _ have that decision, if it goes in his favour, that this did happen, these _ his favour, that this did happen, these practices did happen, for him will be _ these practices did happen, for him will be a _ these practices did happen, for him will be a big victory. what he is trying _ will be a big victory. what he is trying to— will be a big victory. what he is trying to do, as you alluded to earlier, — trying to do, as you alluded to earlier, is— trying to do, as you alluded to earlier, is to prove a point here as

much _ earlier, is to prove a point here as much as— earlier, is to prove a point here as much as anything. compensation is one thing. — much as anything. compensation is one thing, victory is one thing but actually— one thing, victory is one thing but actually trying to stop the sort of intrusion— actually trying to stop the sort of intrusion is really his endgame. we are intrusion is really his endgame. are getting intrusion is really his endgame. - are getting something from the courts. to explain, this is quite confident that there are two sides to this case, what we have been talking about on a prince harry's 33 cases and beyond that 140 and more cases, newspaper stories, cases and beyond that 140 and more cases, newspaperstories, he is talking about something called the generic claims. you will be a way of the terminology here, philippa. these are the allegation that mirror group newspapers at high level, the executives, the senior lawyers, and also newspaper editors, were aware of what was going on. we are hearing from the court that the judge is saying that the likelihood of extensive unlawful activity at the newspapers should have been investigated at the latest by early 2007. here are some critical judgment from thejudge. 2007. here are some critical judgment from the judge. instead, 2007. here are some critical judgment from thejudge. instead, it was concealed from the board, parliament, and the leveson inquiry. we are only hearing bits of this. we

will have to interpret this as we go along but thejudge is will have to interpret this as we go along but the judge is saying that what was going on at the newspaper was concealed from the board. that suggests to me that the judge is saying and we will see more later, that those senior executives may not have known what was going on. therefore, they couldn't have taken action. , ., ., action. does that sound a possibility? _ action. does that sound a possibility? it _ action. does that sound a possibility? it certainly i action. does that sound a - possibility? it certainly does. it sounds — possibility? it certainly does. it sounds like... a lot of the senior people _ sounds like... a lot of the senior people were not in the court room but from _ people were not in the court room but from the evidence he has, he hasn't _ but from the evidence he has, he hasn't been — but from the evidence he has, he hasn't been able to show a link that that was— hasn't been able to show a link that that was the case. from what you say, _ that was the case. from what you say, it— that was the case. from what you say, it sounds like he believes it was happening but it was probably being _ was happening but it was probably being concealed.— was happening but it was probably being concealed. could it have been concealed? — being concealed. could it have been concealed? one _ being concealed. could it have been concealed? one of _ being concealed. could it have been concealed? one of the _ being concealed. could it have been concealed? one of the points - being concealed. could it have been concealed? one of the points that l concealed? one of the points that has been made a lot in these cases is that you have some quite powerful people here who are running newspapers. 0ne people here who are running newspapers. one was piers morgan, the editor of the daily mirror from 1995-2004 the editor of the daily mirror from 1995—2004 during this whole period. he wrote a book called the insider, who prides himself on being able to

know what's going on. is it possible thatjournalists know what's going on. is it possible that journalists were able know what's going on. is it possible thatjournalists were able to do these sorts of stories, a bit of a story for a journalist rather than a lawyer, a question forjournalists. but this was able to go on without those executives knowing? it is rivatel those executives knowing? it is privately possible. in an enormous business. — privately possible. in an enormous business, the lines of communication and what _ business, the lines of communication and what actually is known by the board _ and what actually is known by the board is _ and what actually is known by the board is controlled by the... the board _ board is controlled by the... the board should ask serious questions. and challenging. but i think it is possible — and challenging. but i think it is possible that that information doesn't — possible that that information doesn't always filter through. i will doesn't always filter through. will leave doesn't always filter through. i will leave you for a second. i will try to give you an idea of what we are hearing from the court. bear with me. this is quite complicated and it is coming straight from what thejudge is saying. thejudge is saying there are some important points, the extent to which that he has had to decide consider, the question of the extent to which phone hacking and what is called uig

unlawful information gathering, we have all that to use that phrase covering this case, the extent to which it was carried out with the knowledge of editors, as we have just been talking about, and another key question, whether private investigators acted unlawfully. how much unlawful activity they were involved with and over what period. at what stage the company directors and in—house lawyers knew. again, we havejust and in—house lawyers knew. again, we have just been talking about that. did they conceal their knowledge, if they had it come from shareholders and from the leveson inquiry. we will talk about the leveson inquiry in a minute, a public inquiry in the early 2010s called by the government in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, which looked at all these issues to do with unlawful activity by newspapers. at those hearings, there were claims made about what was going on. there were denials from, for example, piers morgan, who said he had not had any awareness of phone hacking leading to stories in his newspapers. that is an important part of the history of this case.

excuse me. there are questions about whether the claimants in this case should have tried to take these cases to court more quickly earlier, there is six year limit bringing privacy claims, isn't it? to the courts. and whether they can be given damages. what the judge courts. and whether they can be given damages. what thejudge is setting out and what he is looking at with regards to the issues in this case. some very clear information from court in the last few seconds. we are hearing that the judge has decided that 15 out of the 33 articles which were obtained by the newspapers, which were run in the newspapers, which were run in the newspapers, which were run in the newspapers about prince harry, were hacked or unlawfully gathered byjournalists. you could say that prince harry has won on 15 of those 33 articles, what do you make of

that? it 33 articles, what do you make of that? , , , . ., that? it is very difficult, often, to ut that? it is very difficult, often, to put together _ that? it is very difficult, often, to put together the _ that? it is very difficult, often, to put together the evidence . that? it is very difficult, often, l to put together the evidence and what _ to put together the evidence and what the — to put together the evidence and what the judge has done here is critically— what the judge has done here is critically analyse the evidence before — critically analyse the evidence before him and that is why he is saying _ before him and that is why he is saying 15— before him and that is why he is saying 15 have been made out. it doesn't — saying 15 have been made out. it doesn't mean to say the others didn't— doesn't mean to say the others didn't necessarily happen but the evidence — didn't necessarily happen but the evidence is not clear enough for him to form _ evidence is not clear enough for him to form that — evidence is not clear enough for him to form that conclusion. that evidence is not clear enough for him to form that conclusion.— to form that conclusion. that is a aood to form that conclusion. that is a good point- _ to form that conclusion. that is a good point- it— to form that conclusion. that is a good point. it is— to form that conclusion. that is a good point. it is not _ to form that conclusion. that is a good point. it is not proven, - to form that conclusion. that is a good point. it is not proven, if i to form that conclusion. that is a l good point. it is not proven, if you like, on those other cases, but that is quite a significant number, it is half of the 33. it is quite a significant number, it is half of the 33.— half of the 33. it shows a systematic _ half of the 33. it shows a systematic behaviour, i half of the 33. it shows a i systematic behaviour, doesn't half of the 33. it shows a - systematic behaviour, doesn't it? again, _ systematic behaviour, doesn't it? again, that— systematic behaviour, doesn't it? again, that is important for harry that he _ again, that is important for harry that he wants to show that this happened to him over a period of time _ happened to him over a period of time that — happened to him over a period of time. that is why he wanted to bring this claim _ time. that is why he wanted to bring this claim. that sort of indicates his position. if he had just won one of these _ his position. if he had just won one of these cases, that would be a very different— of these cases, that would be a very different outcome. it of these cases, that would be a very different outcome.— different outcome. it would show it was probably _ different outcome. it would show it was probably not _ different outcome. it would show it was probably not a _ different outcome. it would show it was probably not a very _ different outcome. it would show it was probably not a very usual- different outcome. it would show it. was probably not a very usual thing? do you think this shows, as you say, a systematic pattern of behaviour at

these newspapers? it a systematic pattern of behaviour at these newspapers?— a systematic pattern of behaviour at these newspapers? it certainly seems to. at the moment, _ these newspapers? it certainly seems to. at the moment, we _ these newspapers? it certainly seems to. at the moment, we don't - these newspapers? it certainly seems to. at the moment, we don't have i these newspapers? it certainly seemsj to. at the moment, we don't have the full text— to. at the moment, we don't have the full text of— to. at the moment, we don't have the full text of the judgment to know whether— full text of the judgment to know whether that was over a shorter period _ whether that was over a shorter period of— whether that was over a shorter period of time. but it would be really— period of time. but it would be really interesting to see over what time span— really interesting to see over what time span that was and what that pattern— time span that was and what that pattern of— time span that was and what that pattern of behaviour is. it will be very interesting.— pattern of behaviour is. it will be very interesting. more coming in, stand b . very interesting. more coming in, stand by- this— very interesting. more coming in, stand by. this is _ very interesting. more coming in, stand by. this is a _ very interesting. more coming in, stand by. this is a big _ very interesting. more coming in, stand by. this is a big day - very interesting. more coming in, stand by. this is a big day for i stand by. this is a big day for lawyers in this industry! as we have said several times, this is a trial with a judgment at the end, which is quite unusual. the high court has ruled that prince harry was a victim of mobile phone hacking by mirror group newspapers and has awarded him £140,000 and £600. in damages. the judge, delivering thejudgment £140,000 and £600. in damages. the judge, delivering the judgment said his phone was targeted between 2003 at 2009 and 15 out of 33 sample articles were the product of phone

hacking or the product of un—lawful information gathering. i have a colleague trying to work out which of those articles were gathered in that way and we might be able to bring you some more on that. i will quickly check to see if we have any particular news on that at this stage. not yet but we will try to give you an idea. of those 33 articles, philippa, you won't have them all in your head but i do. for example, some of the articles we are talking about, the headlines are what they are known by, diana so sad on harry's big day, but a story about prince harry having a 20 minute visit with his mother, princess diana, at his boarding school and that was the subject of the story. another story which was quite an important one at the time was harry�*s cocaine, ecstasy and ghb parties, a story reported by the newspapers. 0bviously, that was

about drug—taking by the duke of sussex as a young man as he was at the time. that was a story which the newspapers were being asked for something like £20,000 worth in damages. we don't know which of the 33 that the court has yet decided to award these damages on. but if it is one of those, that is one of the higher damages levels that we are likely to see in the outcome from this case. 0ther likely to see in the outcome from this case. other reports, other newspaper stories, one in particular i should mention, newspaper stories, one in particular ishould mention, at newspaper stories, one in particular i should mention, at some point, when princess diana was being remembered, she had died and she was being remembered, there was a debate about whether prince harry and prince william at the time should meet and says diana's former butler, paul barrell. there was a debate between the two of them effectively about whether they should meet him to discuss princess diana's legacy.

prince william thought that seeing this former butler was going to stop him allegedly selling diana's secrets to the press and a story was written about this. the concern was that the newspapers had somehow got information about a phone call between these two very senior royals. and that that story was something they published. that is another one that will attract, if it is one of the 15 that the judge has all the pun, in favour of prince harry, that is another one where the damages would be quite high. i'm going to go back to see if we can get any more news out of the court. mrjustice fancourt saying the sum is modest, £140,000, and they reflect the hurt experienced by the duke because of mirror group newspapers�* concealment of the wrong wrongdoing. let�*s talk about damages. what do you try to get in cases like this, the ballpark figure? it cases like this, the ballpark fiuure? ., , , , .,

figure? it really depends on the distress caused. _ figure? it really depends on the distress caused. that _ figure? it really depends on the distress caused. that is - figure? it really depends on the distress caused. that is why i figure? it really depends on the j distress caused. that is why the judge _ distress caused. that is why the judge is— distress caused. that is why the judge is talking about hurt, because that is— judge is talking about hurt, because that is the _ judge is talking about hurt, because that is the way... not a question of saying _ that is the way... not a question of saying because you have done something that is a fixed penalty for it. _ something that is a fixed penalty for it. it — something that is a fixed penalty for it, it really depends on the seriousness and the effect on the person— seriousness and the effect on the person themselves, as to what happens. — person themselves, as to what happens, how they felt and whether they were _ happens, how they felt and whether they were wider ramifications, jobs, etc. they were wider ramifications, jobs, etc what _ they were wider ramifications, jobs, etc. what the judge is doing here is try to _ etc. what the judge is doing here is try to weigh and balance, for each of these _ try to weigh and balance, for each of these incidents, what is the effect — of these incidents, what is the effect on — of these incidents, what is the effect on him and no doubt the duke would _ effect on him and no doubt the duke would have — effect on him and no doubt the duke would have given evidence. he effect on him and no doubt the duke would have given evidence.- effect on him and no doubt the duke would have given evidence. he was in tears at times — would have given evidence. he was in tears at times during _ would have given evidence. he was in tears at times during this _ would have given evidence. he was in tears at times during this process i tears at times during this process of giving evidence. he said he found the process of giving evidence very hard. anybody who watched it will be in no doubt that this has deeply affected him. of course, there will be people who have their own views about prince harry and will feel he is somebody who also used the media for his own personal reputation of benefit, let�*s put it that way. does it matter he is a famous royal, a

well—known, prominent person? do you get more orfewer damages in well—known, prominent person? do you get more or fewer damages in that position? get more or fewer damages in that osition? �* ., , , ., position? again, it depends on the distress. position? again, it depends on the distress- if — position? again, it depends on the distress. if you _ position? again, it depends on the distress. if you are _ position? again, it depends on the distress. if you are in _ position? again, it depends on the distress. if you are in a _ position? again, it depends on the distress. if you are in a high i distress. if you are in a high profile — distress. if you are in a high profile position, high profile person— profile position, high profile person like prince harry, and how you feel— person like prince harry, and how you feel about it, particularly in relation — you feel about it, particularly in relation to— you feel about it, particularly in relation to his mother, but is a very— relation to his mother, but is a very sensitive topic, as it is with your— very sensitive topic, as it is with your girlfriend if you are breaking up your girlfriend if you are breaking up with— your girlfriend if you are breaking up with your girlfriend. there are certain— up with your girlfriend. there are certain things where you can imagine how you _ certain things where you can imagine how you feel about it is going to be a lot deeperand how you feel about it is going to be a lot deeper and affect you more. you mentioned the crying. those sorts— you mentioned the crying. those sorts of— you mentioned the crying. those sorts of things, the judge will try to get— sorts of things, the judge will try to get to — sorts of things, the judge will try to get to the bottom of it. it won't affect _ to get to the bottom of it. it won't affect him — to get to the bottom of it. it won't affect him getting anotherjob, for example! — affect him getting anotherjob, for example! we haven't got that scenario — example! we haven't got that scenario here. but in the celebrity world, _ scenario here. but in the celebrity world, it _ scenario here. but in the celebrity world, it might do. that is the sort of thing _ world, it might do. that is the sort of thing that comes into question. worth— of thing that comes into question. worth saying that there are different levels of privacy breaches, aren�*t there? different types of things that you could —— that could be revealed about you, medical staff in particular can be extremely damaging. that would result in higher damages, as well. yes, definitely. == result in higher damages, as well. yes, definitely.—

yes, definitely. -- medical stuff. it is yes, definitely. -- medical stuff. it is about— yes, definitely. -- medical stuff. it is about how _ yes, definitely. -- medical stuff. it is about how you _ yes, definitely. -- medical stuff. it is about how you feel - yes, definitely. -- medical stuff. | it is about how you feel personally and the _ it is about how you feel personally and the impact and the people around you and _ and the impact and the people around you and the _ and the impact and the people around you and the world knowing that. things _ you and the world knowing that. things like that are very sensitive. we are _ things like that are very sensitive. we are still— things like that are very sensitive. we are still monitoring, to give you an update, what is happening in court. mrjustice fancourt is delivering a lengthy verbal explanation of his judgment. there will be a document that goes with that, very legalistic, i have read many of them. they do tend to run to sometimes hundreds of pages. this is a case which has got a vast amount of evidence connected with it. we are trying to glean from what the judge is saying really, this central question of who has won. we have discussed what the answer to that is with a number of people involved in this case. if prince harry, as has been said... if the judge has found that 15 of the article is about prince harry out of the 33 initially considered by this court were unlawfully obtained, they will

regard that as a good win. we have a response to this judgment from mirror group newspapers. the spokesperson says, we welcome today�*s judgment. spokesperson says, we welcome today�*sjudgment. it gives spokesperson says, we welcome today�*s judgment. it gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly and we have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation. just looking at what is coming in. that is all we have for the moment. to be clear, what has happened, two sides to this case, the generic case, which is about what executives knew and the articles. we haven�*t heard anything about the other three people who are claiming, along with prince harry, at this stage. no doubt we will get something on that. do you think it is possible this newspaper group will be pleased as it looks as though, we are hearing that their executives had not been

found to have had knowledge of this? you you sure they'll be very relieved _ you you sure they'll be very relieved because that opens up a massive — relieved because that opens up a massive can of worms. if the executives were aware it could have had wider _ executives were aware it could have had wider ramifications even from a criminal— had wider ramifications even from a criminal perspective for allowing the sort — criminal perspective for allowing the sort of behaviour to go on. you are not an — the sort of behaviour to go on. you are not an expert _ the sort of behaviour to go on. m. are not an expert in criminal law and i won�*t put you on that but there were prosecutions in the past. is it likely that there might be prosecutions as a result of this today? what do you think? it sounds very unlikely — today? what do you think? it sounds very unlikely given _ today? what do you think? it sounds very unlikely given the _ today? what do you think? it sounds very unlikely given the lack- today? what do you think? it sounds very unlikely given the lack of- very unlikely given the lack of connection that the judges finding. it connection that the judges finding. it might— connection that the judges finding. it might be that something else comes— it might be that something else comes out in the future but right now there — comes out in the future but right now there doesn't appear to be enough — now there doesn't appear to be enough evidence. it's not going to -et enough evidence. it's not going to get home — enough evidence. it's not going to get home on the balance of probability, it's not going to meet the criminal standard and it wouldn't _ the criminal standard and it wouldn't be worth investigating. and that's a

wouldn't be worth investigating. situc that's a decision for wouldn't be worth investigating. fific that's a decision for the police wouldn't be worth investigating. e"ic that's a decision for the police and that�*s a decision for the police and the