Prince Harry court latest news: Duke hits out at Piers Morgan ‘intimidation’ and James Hewitt rumours

Concluding his witness statement, Harry criticises the state of British journalism and the present Government as both being at “rock bottom”.

He writes: “In my view, in order to save journalism as a profession, journalists need to expose those people in the media that have stolen or highjacked the privileges and powers of the press, and have used illegal or unlawful means for their own gain and agendas.

“In the same vein, I am bringing this claim, not because I hate the tabloid press or even necessarily a section of it, but in order to properly hold the people who have hijacked those privileges, which come with being a member of the press, to account for their actions.

“This has become a huge problem of which I have a unique perspective and experience perhaps, having had a front row seat to it. Because they have showed no willingness to change, I feel that I need to make sure that this unlawful behaviour is exposed, because obviously I don’t want anybody else going through the same thing that I’ve been going through on a personal level.

“But also, on a national level as, at the moment, our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our Government, both of which I believe are at rock bottom.

“Democracy fails when your press fails to scrutinise and hold the Government accountable, and instead choose to get into bed with them so they can ensure the status quo.”

Our video team has this live footage from outside the court where Prince Harry has been giving evidence in his case against Mirror Group Newspapers – becoming the first royal to undergo cross-examination in court in 130 years.

A barrister has suggested Prince Harry must “maintain focus” as she speaks of how “tough” cross-examination is but also of how significant it is to a case.

Samantha Woodham, Barrister at 4PB, explained: “It will be crucial in Prince Harry’s case for him to succeed in respect of the particular allegations he is making, so maintain focus on those.”

She described cross-examination as “tough” and said: “Barristers often say that the height of their case is the moment immediately before their client takes the stand, because if weaknesses in a case are going to be exposed, it will be during cross-examination.”

The Duke of Sussex claimed that “a lot of false information” was put into articles “to put people like myself off the scent”.

He told the court this was done to “cover up the true unlawful means” and that while some elements were true, this was “clouded, shrouded” by the false information.

Under continuing cross-examination, the Duke of Sussex rejected a suggestion that a royal aide was behind information given to the press about his gap year experience in Australia.

Harry was questioned by Mr Green about an article entitled “Harry is ready to quit Oz” published in the Mirror in September 2003.

Mr Green said it appeared that information about Harry “watching TV and videos” – which the duke said in his written statement was a bid to avoid camera crews – came from aide Mark Dyer.

“It doesn’t appear that way,” the duke said, later adding: “I don’t accept that Mr Dyer was freely speaking to the press.”

Mr Green said to Harry that “the information that you are alleging came from voicemail interception or unlawful information-gathering … in fact came from your minders”.

Harry said he saw similarities in reports by other newspapers, adding that the coverage showed: “The level of interest and fascination with my life even when I’m in the middle of the Australian outback.”

Prince Harry has been pressed on a passage in his autobiography Spare which the Mirror publisher’s barrister suggested showed “there have always been many different routes” for information about him to find its way to the media.

In cross-examination, Andrew Green KC asked the duke about a section in the book in which he said “a school mate must have told someone who told someone” a story about him having a haircut which was subsequently reported by the press.

Harry told the court: “As a young man in my teenage years, I never suspected my phone was being hacked or those around me being hacked … I could never have imagined it.”

He added that some of his book was written “with hindsight” and “based on my memories of that time in my life, firstly as a young man, secondly as a soldier in the army and thirdly as a husband and father”.

But Mr Green said the duke’s reference in his memoir to a school mate “reflects the reality that, because of who you are and were, there have always been many different routes by which information about you … is and has been communicated to the press”.

Harry responded: “Now, some many years later, it seems that probably wasn’t the case and sadly a lot of those friends who I became paranoid with at the time, they are no longer friends.”

Prince Harry has denied wandering into “the realms of total speculation” as he was grilled over an article he claimed was likely obtained through unlawful means by The Mirror – despite the story being reported by the Press Association news agency the previous day, which quoted a St James’s Palace spokesperson.

The duke said he was not aware that the information about his thumb in a November 2000 story titled: “Snap: Hary breaks thumb like William” had been reported by PA the previous day.

He was then asked whether he had expressed concerns to other media outlets that reported the same story at the time, including the BBC, to which he responded he had not because unlawful information-gathering was “not systemic” at those titles.

But Harry said he believed information in the Mirror article which was obtained through unlawful means included a paragraph stating that doctors had told him he could not play football for a few weeks, alleging that this had affected him as a “young man at school” who could not now “trust the doctors” there.

Asked if he believed details in the Mirror article by its then-royal editor Jane Kerr, who is due to give evidence on Wednesday, resulted from unlawful information-gathering, Harry replied: “I believe it was, either probably herself or she got someone else to do her dirty work for her.”

Pressed on whose phone he believes was hacked to find out the information, he said: “The doctor’s? I am not sure.”

Asked by barrister Andrew Green whether he was “not in the realms of total speculation”, Harry replied: “No, I do not believe so.”

Earlier today, Prince Harry suggested to the court that tabloid rumours his biological father was James Hewitt were an attempt at ousting him from the Royal Family.

In his witness statement, Harry referred to an article in The People from 2002 with the headline “Plot to rob the DNA of Harry” which reported a bid to steal a sample of the duke’s DNA to check his parentage.

Diana had a five-year affair with cavalry officer Major James Hewitt between 1986 and 1991, with the princess publicly confessing to the relationship during her controversial BBC Panorama interview in 1995.

Harry described the stories about the rumours as “cruel”, saying he was 18 at the time of the article and had lost his mother just a few years earlier.

“They were hurtful, mean and cruel. I was always left questioning the motives behind the stories,” he said. “Were the newspapers keen to put doubt into the minds of the public so I might be ousted from the royal family?” My colleague Joe Middleton has the full report:

Royal spokespeople “rarely ever commented on private matters”, with public statements “only preserved for major events”, Prince Harry has told the court.

The Duke of Sussex made the comments amid questioning over a March 2002 article in the Daily Mirror about him contracting glandular fever, headlined, “Harry’s sick with kissing disease”.

Mirror Group Newspapers barrister Andrew Green said the article, which reported the diagnosis came before the duke’s annual ski trip with his father and brother, contains quotes from a palace spokeswoman about the duke taking doctors’ advice.

The MGN barrister said the story was covered in other newspapers, adding there was no evidence that information from the palace “was not put out freely”.

In his written witness statement, the duke said: “I do not believe that the palace put this information out freely.” In court, Mr Green said Harry was inviting the court to assume the article came from “nefarious activity” by a journalist.

Harry said he was “very suspicious” about information in the article, adding it was “highly personal” and “distressing”.

Prince Harry is now being questioned about an article which reported that he and his brother were going rock climbing rather than attending a gala for the late Queen Mother.

MGN lawyer Andrew Green KC asked Harry if it was his case that came from unlawful voicemail interception, and asked whose phone the duke believed was hacked in order to get that information – to which Harry replied that “it could have been anyone, from myself, my brother” or two other people.

Asked which information he thought had been obtained unlawfully, Harry said: “There’s quite a lot of aspects, quotes and information in there, not to mention a large part of the reason we were going rock climbing 270 miles away was to get away from press intrusion.”

Harry said he was but that it was “impossible to believe” MGN’s denial that one if its suppliers was involved in any unlawful information-gathering given the level of interest in him as well as in the royal family, and how “desperate journalists were for anything royal”.

Mr Green then referred to a Daily Mail article about the same rock climbing trip, published two days before the Mirror article, which said Buckingham Palace had confirmed the princes’ absence from the gala.

Harry said the palace would have answered “in response to a question, which one might be suspicious about, I suggest”.

Mr Green then put to Harry that a Mail On Sunday article published the day before the Mirror one was “in substance, the very same private information that you are complaining about in the Daily Mirror, isn’t it?”, to which the duke replied: “It is one element of it, yes.”

Given these two articles in the days prior to the Mirror story, the barrister asked whether the duke still questioned how the information was in the public domain, to which Harry replied: “Yes, I do.”

The duke said that, based on his understanding of how the press operate, just because information was already in the public domain did not mean there was not “an attempt to take the story further”, adding: “A lot of work would have been done on people’s mobile phones within those two days.”