Prince Harry did not have an “expectation of privacy” over a report he was allegedly punished by the king for dressing up as a Nazi, The Mirror’s publisher told the High Court in London on Thursday.
Claims against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) have been brought by several high-profile figures over alleged illegal gathering of information at its titles The Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People.
During a seven-week trial, the court will hear “representative” cases brought by four people as types of allegations facing the publisher — including voicemail interception, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for illegal activities.
The High Court in London previously heard the duke’s argument that 148 articles published between 1996 and 2010 by MGN titles included information that was allegedly obtained through illegal means, including phone hacking.
Mr Justice Fancourt previously ruled that 33 of the articles should be considered at the trial.
On the second day of the case on Thursday, details of each of the articles and MGN’s response were made public.
The subjects of the articles include Prince Harry’s relationship with his family and ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, a few injuries and illnesses, his military service and allegations of drug use.
MGN repeatedly denied that details contained in various articles published during Prince Harry’s life was private information belonging to the duke.
It defended some of its reporting by alleging a “public interest” in stories or claimed published information was “trivial” in nature.
Prince Harry and Meghan Duchess of Sussex through the years - in pictures
In the document put into the case by the publisher’s lawyers, the court heard one of the articles in Prince Harry’s claim, published in the Sunday Mirror in February 2005, said the duke had been made to do farm work by King Charles — the then-Prince of Wales — after wearing a Nazi uniform at a party.
Andrew Green KC, for MGN, denied the details in the article had been sourced illegally or through phone hacking.
“The information complained of came from prior reports in the public domain. The other information in the article came from a confidential source," he said.
The publisher also denied that Prince Harry had any expectation of privacy over the story.
The barrister continued: “That the claimant, as a high-profile member of the royal family, had carried out some work on a farm was not information in respect of which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly if it was in response to his wearing of a Nazi uniform.
“Alternatively, any minimal privacy interest was outweighed by the public interest in this information about his work and the royal family’s response to his wearing a Nazi uniform.”
Another article in the duke’s claim was published in the Sunday Mirror in January 2002 under the headline “Harry took drugs”, which alleged the duke had smoked cannabis.
MGN said the information came from a set of articles published in the now-defunct News Of The World, which were widely followed up.
Mr Green continued: “The palace had confirmed the story to the News Of The World, after the Prince of Wales decided to co-operate with the title.”
Harry & Meghan documentary - in pictures
The barrister said quotes from royal sources and family friends “were, it is to be inferred, authorised by the palace … in an effort to manage the story”.
“A senior member of the royal family does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in taking illegal drugs, particularly when he did so at a public house in combination with illegally drinking alcohol underage," he added.
Other articles at the centre of Prince Harry’s claim include:
– A September 1996 Daily Mirror story with the headline “Diana so sad on Harry’s big day”, which the publisher said came from “prior reports” in the public domain.
– A Daily Mirror story from November 2000 about Prince Harry breaking his thumb, which MGN said “came from extensive prior reports in the public domain and had been disclosed to the press by the palace”.
– A Sunday Mirror article titled “Rugger Off Harry” published in November 2001 about an injury he had also features in the duke’s claim and is attributed to a “confidential Eton source” and not illegal methods by MGN.
– A March 2002 piece in the Daily Mirror about Prince Harry’s diagnosis of glandular fever, which MGN said it was “likely that information was discreetly released by the palace” in advance of a family trip to Switzerland.
Lawyers for the duke said illegal information-gathering by MGN journalists was “habitual and widespread” and that Prince Harry’s case was “significant not just in terms of the span but also the range of activities”.
David Sherborne, for Prince Harry, said: “We all remember the images of him walking behind his mother’s coffin.
“From that moment on, as a schoolboy and from his career in the army and as a young adult, he was subjected, it was clear, to the most intrusive methods of obtaining his personal information.
“Prince or not, the blatantly unlawful and illegal methods used by the defendants … was quite frankly appalling.”
MGN is contesting the cases at trial and has said there is “no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, of voicemail interception in any of these four claims”.
The court previously heard MGN has admitted a private investigator was instructed, by a journalist at The Sunday People, to unlawfully gather information about Harry’s activities at the Chinawhite nightclub on a night in February 2004.
Mr Green said the publisher “unreservedly apologises” to the duke and that it accepts he was entitled to “appropriate compensation”.
