Prince Harry case: Duke of Sussex claims phone hacking was on an 'industrial scale' at Mirror titles

Andrew Green KC then asked Harry about part of the story, which referred to Chelsy Davy having “screamed for half an hour” at him on the phone, and where he thought this information could have come from.

Harry told the court: “At this point, knowing that my girlfriend’s number was bizarrely in the hands of Mirror journalists, that they probably looked through her call data and saw missed calls, late calls… and managed to put together a story based on that.”

He added: “It was very suspicious that they had her number.

“As I said, I do not believe she would give Mirror Group or any journalists her phone number.”

MGN’s barrister Andrew Green KC has now turned his questioning to a November 2007 Sunday Mirror article titled 'Hooray Harry’s dumped'.

It alleged that the duke went to West London nightclub Amika and “drowned his sorrows” over the split with Chelsy Davy. Harry told the court the article headline “does seem to suggest that people are celebrating”, adding it “is a little bit mean”.

He later said: “‘Hooray Harry’s dumped’ was hurtful to say the least, that such a private moment was turned into a bit of a laugh.”

Referencing a private investigator invoice, Harry said the fact that “these payments were referred to as ‘Project Harry’ is incredibly disturbing”.

“The level of surveillance that I was under was quite something,” the duke said.

Mr Green said of the article: “It’s not celebrating the demise of the relationship.”

MGN has said in court documents that it does not know what activities the invoice refers to or whether it relates to the story. The publisher also said information in the story came from a News of the World article on the same day - and there was no evidence of phone hacking.

Andrew Green KC suggested a December 2007 article about Harry dropping Chelsy Davy off after she spent the night at Kensington Palace - which included a paparazzi photograph of her - was something “anyone could have observed”.

The barrister said there were often photographers outside the palace, to which Harry said: “They were only there for pretty much emergencies or big moments of the royal family – weddings, engagements, hospital visits.”

Mr Green said: “There were there on this occasion”, to which Harry replied: “This to me is incredibly suspicious as I say. She spent the night with me, I was dropping her off as close to Kensington High Street as I could get without being seen.

“To know that a photographer was there for us, waiting, was highly suspicious.”

Harry “never discussed with the Palace” details of his relationship with former girlfriend Chelsy Davy, the High Court heard.

MGN’s barrister asked Harry about a September 2007 People article that claimed the couple’s relationship was “in crisis after a string of bitter bust-ups”.

Harry told the court that the “whole article itself is suspicious”, adding: “I never discussed with the Palace any details of my relationship with my girlfriend”.

Mr Green asked him if he was alleging that information in the story came from phone hacking.

“Yes,” Harry said, adding: “I say that everything that has been attributed to a Palace source… was obtained unlawfully.”

“The Palace wouldn’t know this information.”

Harry disagreed with Mr Green’s suggestion a “well-connected source was perfectly prepared” to provide information to the article’s author, with Harry also rejecting the suggestion that his allegations of phone hacking were “total speculation”.

The Duke of Sussex and his ex-girlfriend were “not sharing anything with anyone”, amid a report she had asked for a “trial separation” in November 2007, Harry said.

The Daily Mirror story said Ms Davy “reportedly asked for a trial separation in an emotional phone call”.

“I believe that that could be obtained through a voicemail,” Harry told the court, but adding he would be “speculating” when asked if he remembered if either he or Ms Davy had left such a message.

Andrew Green KC said information in the story had been previously reported by other media outlets.

The duke said quotes in the article “are attributed to friends”, adding: “By this point myself and Chelsy were not sharing anything with anyone.”

Andrew Green KC, for MGN, has now finished his cross-examination of the Prince Harry- and the court has adjourned for a quick lunch break.

The duke’s barrister David Sherborne will re-examine Harry when they return, which he says he expects will take about 10 to 15 minutes.

After taking the duke through all of the 33 sample articles being considered in the case before the lunch break, Andrew Green KC asked him when he first approached solicitors about making a claim against MGN.

“I didn’t go to them, I bumped into Mr Sherborne in France. It’s in my book," Harry replied. Asked when this meeting took place, he said: “It’s referenced in my book, 2018-ish.”

Mr Green asked if, before he spoke to lawyers, he had concerns over any particular articles being the result of unlawful activity.

Harry said: “No, I was never shown anything. It was all contained within the palace.” He added that even if he had been shown anything, he “would not have been allowed” to make a complaint.

Mr Green put to the duke that he has never been able to identify any story in an MGN publication to have come from phone hacking.

Harry replied: “I think that is a question for my legal team. There is hard evidence to suggest an incredible amount of suspiciousness and I believe that burner phones were used extensively.”

When asked if there was a particular voicemail which he believes was intercepted, he answered: “I can’t remember a specific voicemail that I left over the last 20 years.”

Prince Harry has shed some light on why he initiated his series of individual phone hacking cases against publishers.

Andrew Green KC for MGN earlier asked the duke if his initial discussions with his lawyers were with a view to bringing a separate hacking claim against News Group Newspapers - publisher of the now-defunct News of the World.

Harry said he believed there was a discussion about him wanting to put a stop to the “absolute intrusion and hate that was coming towards me and my wife and see if there was any way to find a different course of action, rather than relying on the institution’s way”.

Mr Green asked if he had wanted to bring an action against NGN first and then decided to also sue MGN, to which Harry replied: “No, I believe I filed the claims at pretty much the same time.” Harry added that there was “industrial-scale destruction of evidence on all sides”.

Asked by Mr Green where he had got the idea there was “industrial-scale destruction” from, he replied: “From my legal team.”

The duke said he was not aware there was no existing call data in relation to him, and was then asked if he believed he was being hacked on a daily basis.

“It could have been happening on a daily basis, I simply don’t know," he responded. As he wrapped up his cross examination of the duke, Mr Green asked if he was aware of any evidence which gave “any indication whatsoever” that he was being hacked.

Harry replied: “No, that is the… reason why I am here.”

The Duke of Sussex has finished giving evidence at about 2.30pm on Wednesday, after nearly eight hours of questioning across the last two days.

Before Harry left the witness box, he underwent a quick re-examination by his own lawyer, David Sherborne.

Mr Green had suggested he was entering the realm of "total speculation" several times, the duke said.

Harry denied he had been speculating when asked if he had been by Mr Sherborne, saying there was “hard evidence”.

“For my whole life the press has misled me and covered up the wrongdoing... For me to be sitting here in court knowing the defence has the evidence in front of them, and Mr Green suggesting I’m speculating, I’m not entirely sure what to say.”

Mr Sherborne asked him about an earlier part of his evidence in which he said that hacking him would have been “an incredibly risky thing to do” and whether he meant no-one would have hacked him as a result.

Harry replied: “No, I believe they would have gone to extreme lengths to cover their tracks.”