The full 386-page judgment in the Duke of Sussex's claim (and the claims of three other claimants) against Mirror Group Newspapers for phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Duke-of-Sussex-v-MGN-Judgment.pdf
Mr Justice Fancourt's summary of his judgment:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Duke-of-Sussex-v-MGN-Judgment-Press-Summary.pdf
From the summary (I have bolded the main points relating to the Duke's case):
Duke of Sussex.
10. I have found the Duke’s case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only. I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information gathering. I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent, and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper. However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined). There was a tendency for the Duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time, and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.
11. There were also a number of separate invoices, unconnected to published articles, which I consider to be evidence of unlawful gathering of the Duke’s private information.
12. I have accordingly awarded the Duke damages in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved. I have also awarded a further sum to compensate the Duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him. I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the Duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the Press towards the Duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the Duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.
13. I have also awarded a sum for aggravated damages, to reflect the particular hurt and sense of outrage that the Duke feels because two directors of Trinity Mirror plc, to whom the board had delegated day-to-day responsibility for such matters, knew about the illegal activity that was going at their newspapers and could and should have put a stop to it. Instead of doing so, they turned a blind eye to what was going on, and positively concealed it. Had the illegal conduct been stopped, the misuse of the Duke’s private information would have ended much sooner.
14. The total sum that I have awarded the Duke in damages is £140,600.
