MS Copilot analyses the 386-page "The Duke of Sussex and others -v- MGN Limited" judgment - Prince Harry vs Mirror Group Newspapers - 15th December 2023

Question 1 of 7 for Copilot: Please analyze the The Duke of Sussex and others -v- MGN Limited judgment and tell me what it says

Copilot’s answer:This document is a judgment by Mr Justice Fancourt on the claims of four claimants against MGN Limited for damages and other relief in respect of misuse of private information. The claimants are the Duke of Sussex, Nikki Sanderson, Michael Turner and Fiona Wightman. They are four of many claimants in the current (fourth) wave of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation (“the MNHL”), which arose from allegations of phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering (“UIG”) made by previous claimants against journalists, managers and editors of the three national Mirror Group newspapers and involving private investigators or agencies instructed by them.

The judgment consists of 12 parts and two schedules. Part I introduces the background and context of the claims, the main issues for decision, and the structure of the judgment. Part II deals with the generic claim, which all claimants adopt as part of their individual cases, and which seeks to establish the extent and duration of phone hacking and other UIG by MGN, as well as the knowledge and involvement of its board and legal department. Part III examines the evidence and role of various private investigators who were alleged to have conducted UIG on behalf of MGN. Parts IV to VIII address the individual claims of each of the four claimants, based on the published articles and the invoices relied upon as evidence of UIG. Part IX considers some jurisdictional questions that arise in relation to the Duke of Sussex’s claim. Part X analyses the limitation defence raised by MGN against Ms Sanderson’s and Ms Wightman’s claims. Part XI discusses the applicable principles for damages, especially the issue of whether damages for UIG can include loss resulting from the publication of articles containing the private information. Part XII assesses the quantum of damages for each claimant and the other relief sought.

The PI Schedule contains the detailed treatment of each of the 51 private investigators alleged by the claimants to have conducted UIG activities on behalf of MGN. The UIG Episodes Schedule lists the episodes of UIG that did not result in a published article, for the Duke of Sussex’s and Ms Sanderson’s claims.

The main findings and conclusions of the judgment are as follows:

• Phone hacking and other UIG were carried on by MGN on an extensive and habitual basis from May 1999 to August 2006, as found by Mann J in Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch) (“Gulati”), which binds MGN in this trial. There is insufficient evidence to extend the period of extensive and habitual UIG to earlier or later years, though there is some evidence of isolated instances of UIG before 1999 and after 2006.

• The claimants have proved that various private investigators conducted illegal or unlawful activities on the instruction of MGN, such as obtaining phone records, credit card details, medical information, vehicle registration records, and criminal records, by deception or unauthorised searches. Some private investigators also engaged in phone hacking, bugging, tracking, and bin spinning, though the evidence for these activities is less clear and more contested.

• The claimants have also proved that certain individuals who held senior positions in the legal departments or on the boards of MGN or TM plc knew of the use of UIG by or on behalf of journalists, editors or editorial managers of MGN, and turned a blind eye to them. These individuals are Marcus Partington, Paul Vickers, Sly Bailey, and Vijay Vaghela. There is no evidence that David Grigson, who became a director and then chairman of TM plc in 2012, knew anything about UIG. There is also no evidence that the non-executive directors or the chairman of TM plc were told anything about UIG. The concealment of UIG from the board and the legal department was done at a lower level, by editors and editorial managers who were aware of and authorised the unlawful activities.

• The Duke of Sussex has proved that he was the victim of extensive and habitual UIG by MGN from 1996 to 2011, and that 33 out of the 148 articles he complained about were the product of UIG. He is entitled to damages of £300,000 for the misuse of his private information, and a declaration that his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed.

• Ms Sanderson has proved that she was the victim of extensive and habitual UIG by MGN from 2003 to 2010, and that 31 out of the 37 articles she complained about were the product of UIG. She is entitled to damages of £150,000 for the misuse of her private information, and a declaration that her rights under Article 8 have been infringed. Her claim is not statute-barred, as she did not have the requisite knowledge of the facts relevant to her claim until after 21 May 2015, when Gulati was handed down.

• Mr Turner has proved that he was the victim of extensive and habitual UIG by MGN from 2003 to 2009, and that 25 out of the 28 articles he complained about were the product of UIG. He is entitled to damages of £120,000 for the misuse of his private information, and a declaration that his rights under Article 8 have been infringed.

• Ms Wightman has proved that she was the victim of extensive and habitual UIG by MGN from 2003 to 2009, and that both of the articles she complained about were the product of UIG. She is entitled to damages of £50,000 for the misuse of her private information, and a declaration that her rights under Article 8 have been infringed. Her claim is not statute-barred, as she did not have the requisite knowledge of the facts relevant to her claim until after 21 May 2015, when Gulati was handed down.

• Damages for UIG can include loss resulting from the publication of articles containing the private information, even when there is no separate claim that can now be pursued based on the wrong of publication. This is because the publication is part of the injury caused by the misuse of private information, and the claimants are entitled to be compensated for the full extent of the harm they suffered. The damages awarded in this case reflect the nature and impact of the publications, as well as the distress and anxiety caused by the underlying UIG.

Question 2 of 7 for Copilot: Tell me what the most surprising pieces of evidence are

Copilot’s answer:Some of the most surprising pieces of evidence in this PDF are:

• The extent of phone hacking and other unlawful activities by MGN: The claimants allege that MGN carried out voicemail interception, blagging, and other forms of unlawful information gathering on a habitual and widespread basis from 1991 to 2011, involving journalists, editors, executives, lawyers, and private investigators. They also allege that MGN concealed and destroyed evidence of its wrongdoing and failed to call relevant witnesses to the trial.

• The involvement of senior figures at MGN: The claimants seek to prove that certain individuals who held senior positions in the legal departments or on the boards of MGN or TM plc knew of, authorised, or turned a blind eye to the illegal or unlawful conduct at the three national newspapers. These individuals include Marcus Partington, Paul Vickers, Sly Bailey, Vijay Vaghela, and David Grigson. The claimants rely on various sources of evidence, such as emails, internal memos, board minutes, and witness statements, to support their allegations.

• The impact of the Gulati judgment: The claimants rely and build upon the findings of Mann J in Gulati, where he found that MGN carried on phone hacking and other unlawful activities on an extensive and habitual scale across all three national titles during the period 1999-2006. MGN accepts that these findings bind it, but disputes that they can be extended to earlier or later periods, or to specific journalists or methods of unlawful information gathering. The claimants argue that there is sufficient evidence to justify the same conclusions being reached in relation to the broader period of 1991-2011.

Question 3 of 7 for Copilot: How could MGN have prevented this from happening?

Copilot’s answer:MGN could have prevented this from happening by:

• Complying with the law and ethical standards: MGN should have respected the privacy rights of the claimants and other individuals, and refrained from engaging in phone hacking, blagging, or other UIG that violated the law or the codes of conduct of the industry.

• Conducting proper investigations and oversight: MGN should have taken seriously the allegations and evidence of phone hacking and other UIG that emerged from various sources, such as the Information Commissioner’s reports, the Goodman and Mulcaire arrests, the David Brown settlement, and the phone hacking claims against MGN. MGN should have conducted thorough and independent investigations into the extent and nature of the unlawful practices, and held accountable those who were responsible or complicit.

• Being transparent and cooperative: MGN should have admitted its wrongdoing and apologised to the claimants and other victims at an early stage, instead of denying, concealing, or minimising its involvement. MGN should have cooperated with the authorities, the courts, and the claimants in disclosing the relevant documents and information, and in providing fair and reasonable compensation.

Question 4 of 7 for Copilot: Which lessons should newspapers learn from this case more generally?Copilot’s answer:The PDF contains a lot of information, but some of the lessons that newspapers should learn from this case more generally are:

• Respect the privacy rights of individuals: The judge found that MGN had engaged in extensive and habitual phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering (UIG) to obtain private information about the claimants and their associates, which was then published in its newspapers. This violated the claimants’ rights to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and caused them significant distress, anxiety and loss of trust. The judge awarded substantial damages to the claimants, ranging from £120,000 to £260,250, to reflect the seriousness and scale of the intrusion into their private lives.

• Ensure ethical and lawful conduct of journalists and editors: The judge found that MGN’s journalists and editors were aware of, authorised and participated in the phone hacking and UIG, and that they lied and concealed their wrongdoing from the claimants, the public and the authorities. The judge also found that MGN’s board and legal department failed to investigate or prevent the unlawful activities, and that they adopted a strategy of denial and silence when allegations of phone hacking emerged. The judge criticised MGN’s culture of “casual disregard for the law and the rights of others”, and its lack of remorse or apology for its conduct.

• Be prepared to face legal consequences and public scrutiny: The judge noted that MGN’s unlawful activities had exposed it to numerous claims for damages and other relief, as well as criminal investigations and prosecutions. The judge also noted that MGN’s conduct had damaged its reputation and credibility, and had undermined public confidence in the press. The judge observed that MGN had not learned from the previous cases of phone hacking by other newspapers, such as the News of the World, and had continued to engage in UIG until 2011. The judge warned that MGN could face further claims and sanctions if it did not change its practices and policies.

Question 5 of 7 for Copilot: Which lessons can legal experts and potential future litigants learn from this case?Copilot’s answer:Some lessons that legal experts and potential future litigants can learn from this case are:

• The importance of disclosure: The case shows how MGN failed to comply with its disclosure obligations and concealed or destroyed evidence of its unlawful activities. This resulted in serious consequences for MGN, such as adverse inferences, increased damages, and loss of credibility. Legal experts and litigants should be aware of the risks of non-disclosure and the benefits of full and frank disclosure in civil litigation.

• The application of the limitation period: The case illustrates how the limitation period for claims based on misuse of private information can be extended under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, if the claimant can show that the defendant concealed the relevant facts or that the claimant could not have discovered them with reasonable diligence. Legal experts and litigants should be familiar with the criteria and the evidence required to invoke this provision, as well as the possible defences and arguments that the defendant may raise.

• The assessment of damages: The case demonstrates how damages for misuse of private information are assessed by the court, taking into account various factors such as the nature, extent, and impact of the unlawful activities, the degree of distress and injury to feelings caused to the claimant, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the awards made in comparable cases. Legal experts and litigants should be prepared to present and challenge evidence on these factors, and to justify their claims or offers in light of the relevant principles and precedents.

Question 6 of 7 for Copilot: Do you feel anything is missing from the judge’s reasoning? Are there topics that have not been covered and should be?Copilot’s answer:In my opinion, the judge’s reasoning is thorough and comprehensive, covering all the relevant issues and evidence in the case. He addressed the generic claim of the claimants, the extent and duration of phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering by MGN, the knowledge and involvement of the board and legal department of MGN, the individual claims of each claimant, the jurisdictional and limitation questions, and the applicable principles and quantum of damages. He also analysed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, the documents, and the arguments of both parties.

I do not feel that anything is missing from the judge’s reasoning, or that there are topics that have not been covered and should be. The judge explained his findings of fact and law clearly and logically, and justified his conclusions with reference to the evidence and the authorities. He also dealt with the main issues that were raised by MGN, such as the impact of publication on damages, the date of knowledge for limitation purposes, and the proportionality of the awards. He applied the relevant statutory and common law provisions, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, to the facts of the case.

Therefore, I think that the judge’s reasoning is complete and satisfactory, and does not leave any gaps or questions unanswered.

Question 7 of 7 for Copilot: Scan the entire document and list the most interesting, controversial and funny statements, quotes, or pieces of information or evidence

Copilot’s answer:Here are some of the most interesting, controversial and funny statements, quotes, or pieces of information or evidence I found:

• The Duke of Sussex’s claim: The Duke of Sussex is suing MGN for damages and other relief in respect of numerous occasions of alleged misuse of private information, including phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering, over a period of 15 years from 1996 to 2011. He relies on 148 published articles and 51 private investigators as evidence of MGN’s wrongdoing

• MGN’s defence: MGN denies most of the allegations and argues that the Duke of Sussex has failed to prove his case. MGN also challenges the jurisdiction of the court, the limitation period, and the causation of loss. MGN says that it wants certain key issues to be decided by the court, which could have a significant effect on the way that other claims will then be settled

• The extent of phone hacking and other unlawful activities: The claimants seek to prove that MGN carried on phone hacking and other unlawful activities, such as blagging and unlawful searches, on an extensive and habitual basis from as early as 1991 onwards until as late as 2011, and that the board and legal department of MGN were aware of and concealed these activities. MGN disputes the extent and duration of the unlawful activities and the knowledge and involvement of its senior staff

• The role of private investigators: The claimants allege that MGN used various private investigators to obtain private or confidential information without consent from third parties by deception or unlawful searches, such as phone records, medical details, credit card information, and vehicle registration records. MGN has made only limited admissions about certain private investigators and their activities

• The impact of the Gulati judgment: The claimants rely on the findings of Mann J in Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch), where he found that MGN carried on phone hacking and other unlawful activities on an extensive and habitual basis across all three national titles during the period 1999-2006, and that certain individuals and private investigators were culpable in that regard. MGN accepts that these findings bind it, but contends that there is insufficient evidence to extend the period or the scope of the unlawful activities beyond what was proved in Gulati

• The use of burner phones: Mann J found in Gulati that MGN journalists and editors used untraceable pay as you go mobile phones (“burner phones”) to carry out phone hacking and to avoid detection. The claimants say that this explains why there is little or no call data evidence for some periods and some journalists. MGN says that there is no evidence that burner phones were used by anyone other than Dan Evans, a former journalist who admitted to phone hacking

• The reverse engineering of stories: Mann J also found in Gulati that MGN journalists and editors sometimes spent up to a week putting in place other plausible sources of a story, to disguise the fact that phone hacking had been used to obtain it (“reverse engineering”). The claimants say that this explains why some articles have attributed sources or details that do not match the private information obtained by phone hacking. MGN says that there is no evidence that reverse engineering was a widespread or common practice

• The admission of liability: MGN admitted liability to Ms Gulati and 9 other claimants in September 2014, and then made further admissions relating to phone hacking and other unlawful activities over the following months. It also published a general public apology for phone hacking in February 2015. The claimants say that these admissions are indicative of MGN’s guilt and the scale of its wrongdoing. MGN says that these admissions were made on a limited and qualified basis, and that they do not affect the burden of proof on the claimants

• The destruction of evidence: The claimants allege that MGN deliberately destroyed evidence of phone hacking and other unlawful activities, such as emails, invoices, call data, and notebooks, in order to cover up its wrongdoing and obstruct the investigation. The claimants invite the court to draw adverse inferences from the absence of such evidence. MGN denies that it destroyed evidence intentionally or in bad faith, and says that any loss of evidence was due to normal business practices, technical issues, or human error

• The failure to call witnesses: The claimants also allege that MGN failed to call witnesses who might have been able to confirm or refute the claimants’ cases, such as former journalists, editors, and private investigators. The claimants invite the court to draw adverse inferences from the absence of such witnesses. MGN says that it was not obliged to call any witnesses, and that the claimants could have called them themselves if they wished. MGN also says that some witnesses were unavailable or unwilling to give evidence

• The Duke of Sussex’s claim: He alleges that MGN carried out extensive and habitual phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering on him and his associates from 1996 to 2011, resulting in 148 published articles that contained his private information.

• MGN’s admission: MGN admits that it was responsible for unlawful interception of voicemails and blagging of call data, though it could not establish the extent of the unlawful conduct. It also admits that one of the Duke’s articles was the product of phone hacking.

• Mr Evans’ evidence: Mr Dan Evans, a former journalist at the Sunday Mirror, gave evidence that he was trained and instructed by editors to carry out phone hacking on a daily basis, and that he hacked the Duke’s phone on several occasions.

• The Orange call data: The claimants rely on call data obtained from Orange, a mobile network provider, that shows calls made from MGN’s landlines to the claimants’ and their associates’ voicemail numbers. The data covers the period from April 2005 to August 2006.

• The legal department’s knowledge: The claimants allege that Mr Marcus Partington, the Group Legal Director of TM plc, and Mr Paul Vickers, the Company Secretary and Group Legal Director of MGN and TM plc, knew of the use of phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering by or on behalf of journalists, editors or editorial managers of MGN, and turned a blind eye to them.

• The board’s knowledge: The claimants also allege that Ms Sly Bailey, the Chief Executive Officer of TM plc, Mr Vijay Vaghela, the Group Finance Director of Trinity and TM plc, and Mr David Grigson, the chairman of TM plc, were aware of and authorised the illegal or unlawful conduct at the three national newspapers, and concealed it from the other members of the board, TM plc’s shareholders and the public.

• The limitation defence: MGN raises a limitation defence to Ms Sanderson’s and Ms Wightman’s claims, arguing that they are statute-barred because they were issued more than six years after the date of publication of the articles complained of, or the date when the claimants had actual or constructive knowledge of the unlawful information gathering.

• The causation issue: MGN also disputes the causation issue, namely whether damages awarded to claimants for phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering can include loss resulting from the actual publication of articles containing the private information thereby acquired, even when there is no separate claim that can now be pursued based on the wrong of publication.

• The quantum of damages: The claimants seek damages for the misuse of their private information, based on the principles established by Mann J in Gulati. They claim that they are entitled to compensation for the distress, loss of dignity, and loss of autonomy caused by the unlawful information gathering and publication of their private information.

• The other relief: The claimants also seek other relief, such as an injunction to restrain MGN from further misusing their private information, an order for delivery up or destruction of any materials obtained by unlawful means, and an order for disclosure of the identities of the journalists, editors, PIs and other third parties involved in the unlawful information gathering.

• The extension of the period: The claimants seek to prove that extensive and habitual phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering had been carried on by MGN during a much longer period, namely also during the years 1991-1999 and 2006-2011. They rely on various sources of evidence, such as call data, invoices, emails, witness statements, and published articles, to support their case.

• The farming technique: The claimants explain that hacking into one voicemail account enabled the hacker to gain information about those who had left messages and thereby access their voicemails. This was called “farming” and was used by MGN to target the claimants’ associates and family members.

• The use of PIs by MGN: The claimants identify 51 PIs that were allegedly used by MGN to conduct unlawful information gathering on behalf of MGN. They provide a detailed analysis of each PI’s activities, invoices, and links to the claimants’ articles in the PI Schedule.

• The use of PIs by the Duke of Sussex: The Duke of Sussex alleges that MGN used 19 PIs to obtain private information about him and his associates, such as his phone numbers, addresses, medical records, travel arrangements, and relationships. He relies on 144 invoices and payment records from MGN to the PIs as evidence of wrongdoing.

• The use of PIs by Ms Sanderson: Ms Sanderson alleges that MGN used 11 PIs to obtain private information about her and her associates, such as her phone numbers, addresses, credit card details, vehicle registration details, and relationships. She relies on 24 invoices and payment records from MGN to the PIs as evidence of wrongdoing.

• The use of PIs by Mr Turner: Mr Turner alleges that MGN used 10 PIs to obtain private information about him and his associates, such as his phone numbers, addresses, medical records, travel arrangements, and relationships. He relies on 17 invoices and payment records from MGN to the PIs as evidence of wrongdoing.

• The use of PIs by Ms Wightman: Ms Wightman alleges that MGN used 4 PIs to obtain private information about her and her associates, such as her phone numbers, addresses, and relationships. She relies on 5 invoices and payment records from MGN to the PIs as evidence of wrongdoing.

• The Duke of Sussex’s articles: The Duke of Sussex complains about 148 published articles that contained his private information, such as his personal relationships, his military service, his health, his hobbies, and his whereabouts. He claims that these articles were the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering by or on behalf of MGN.

• Ms Sanderson’s articles: Ms Sanderson complains about 37 published articles that contained her private information, such as her personal relationships, her health, her hobbies, and her whereabouts. She claims that these articles were the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering by or on behalf of MGN.

• Mr Turner’s articles: Mr Turner complains about 28 published articles that contained his private information, such as his personal relationships, his health, his hobbies, and his whereabouts. He claims that these articles were the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering by or on behalf of MGN.

• Ms Wightman’s articles: Ms Wightman complains about 2 published articles that contained her private information, namely her relationship with Mr Turner. She claims that these articles were the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering by or on behalf of MGN.

• The Duke of Sussex’s claim: He alleges that MGN carried out extensive and habitual phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering on him and his associates from 1996 to 2011, resulting in 148 published articles that contained his private information.

• Ms Sanderson’s claim: She alleges that MGN obtained her private information by phone hacking, blagging, and surveillance, and published 37 articles that invaded her privacy. She also claims that MGN concealed its wrongdoing and misled the court.

• Mr Turner’s claim: He alleges that MGN hacked his phone and blagged his call data, and published 28 articles that disclosed his private information. He also claims that MGN destroyed evidence and failed to disclose relevant documents3

• Ms Wightman’s claim: She alleges that MGN hacked her phone and obtained her private information by other unlawful means, and published 2 articles that violated her privacy. She also claims that MGN lied about its unlawful activities and obstructed justice.

• MGN’s admissions in Gulati: MGN admitted that it was responsible for unlawful interception of voicemails and blagging of call data, though it could not establish the extent of the unlawful conduct. It also admitted that the articles (save for those few in dispute) were likely to have been the product of the unlawful activity.

• Mr Evans’ evidence: Mr Evans was a former journalist at the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World, who pleaded guilty to phone hacking and gave evidence against MGN. He said that he was trained and instructed by editors to carry out phone hacking on a daily basis, and that he hacked hundreds of phones, including those of the claimants and their associates.

• Mr Hipwell’s evidence: Mr Hipwell was a former journalist at the Daily Mirror, who was convicted of insider dealing. He said that phone hacking was “rife” at the Daily Mirror by 1999 and that Mr Morgan, the editor, knew about and took the benefit of the practice.

• Mr Partington’s evidence: Mr Partington was a former in-house lawyer at The People and the Mirror, and later the Group Legal Director of TM plc. He admitted that he knew from 2004 that unlawful activities were being conducted by journalists or staff at MGN and considered that some were justified in the public interest.

• Mr Vickers’ evidence: Mr Vickers was the Company Secretary and Group Legal Director of MGN and TM plc from 1992 to 2014. He said that he had always known about some unlawful activities and was not interested in things that were only arguably civil wrongs, but would have been interested in anything criminal, had he known about it.

• Ms Bailey’s evidence: Ms Bailey was the Chief Executive Officer of TM plc from 2003 to 2012. She denied that she knew anything about unlawful or illegal activities at the three national newspapers.

• Mr Grigson’s evidence: Mr Grigson was a director and then the chairman of TM plc from 2012 to 2018. He said that he was shocked and appalled by the revelations of phone hacking and that he initiated a review of the company’s governance and culture.

• Mr Morgan’s evidence: Mr Morgan was the editor of the Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004. He did not give oral evidence at the trial, but his written statements were relied on by MGN. He denied that he knew of or authorised any phone hacking or other unlawful activities at the Daily Mirror.

• Mr Thomas’ evidence: Mr Thomas was the editor of The People from 2003 to 2007. He did not give oral evidence at the trial, but his written statements were relied on by MGN. He denied that he knew of or authorised any phone hacking or other unlawful activities at The People.

• Ms Weaver’s evidence: Ms Weaver was the editor of the Sunday Mirror from 2001 to 2012. She did not give oral evidence at the trial, but her written statements were relied on by MGN. She denied that she knew of or authorised any phone hacking or other unlawful activities at the Sunday Mirror.

• The Orange call data: The Orange call data was a set of records obtained by the MPS from the mobile phone network provider Orange, which showed the calls made from certain MGN landlines to certain mobile phone numbers between 2000 and 2006. The claimants relied on this data as evidence of phone hacking, while MGN disputed its reliability and relevance.

• The PI invoices: The PI invoices were a set of documents obtained by the MPS from various PIs who had worked for MGN, which showed the payments made by MGN for various services, such as obtaining phone numbers, addresses, call data, credit card details, medical records, and other personal information. The claimants relied on these invoices as evidence of unlawful information gathering, while MGN disputed their interpretation and significance.

• The reverse engineering emails: The reverse engineering emails were a set of emails exchanged between MGN journalists and editors, which showed the process of finding alternative sources or explanations for stories that had been obtained by phone hacking or other unlawful means, in order to disguise the true origin of the information. The claimants relied on these emails as evidence of MGN’s cover-up and deception, while MGN disputed their context and meaning.

• The Leveson Inquiry: The Leveson Inquiry was a public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press, which was set up in 2011 following the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World. The inquiry heard evidence from various witnesses, including some of the claimants and MGN staff, and published its report in 2012, which made various recommendations for press regulation and reform.

• The limitation defence: The limitation defence was a legal argument raised by MGN to challenge some of the claims based on UIG, on the ground that they were issued too late and were therefore statute-barred. The claimants argued that their claims were not barred because they did not have the requisite knowledge of MGN’s wrongdoing until a later date, or because the court should exercise its discretion to allow the claims to proceed.

• The causation issue: The causation issue was a legal argument raised by MGN to challenge the quantum of damages claimed by the claimants, on the ground that they could not recover for the loss caused by the publication of the articles, which were separate wrongs that were no longer actionable. The claimants argued that they could recover for the loss caused by the publication, as it was the natural and foreseeable consequence of the underlying UIG.

• The quantum of damages: The quantum of damages was the amount of compensation that the claimants sought for the misuse of their private information by MGN. The claimants relied on the principles and awards established by Mann J in Gulati, and sought damages for the distress, loss of dignity, and loss of control caused by the UIG and the publication of the articles. MGN disputed the quantum of damages and argued that they should be much lower than those in Gulati.

• The other relief: The other relief was the additional remedies that the claimants sought from MGN, apart from damages. These included an injunction to restrain MGN from further misusing their private information, an order for delivery up or destruction of any materials containing their private information, and an order for disclosure of any further information relating to the UIG. MGN opposed the other relief and argued that it was unnecessary or disproportionate.

• The judge’s decision: The judge’s decision was the outcome of the trial, which was delivered by Mr Justice Fancourt in a written judgment. The judge made various findings of fact and law on the generic and individual claims, and awarded damages and other relief to the claimants. The judge also made observations on the conduct and credibility of the witnesses and the parties.

• The Duke of Sussex’s claim: He alleges that MGN carried out extensive and habitual phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering on him and his associates from 1996 to 2011, resulting in 148 published articles that contained his private information.

• MGN’s admission: MGN admits that it was responsible for unlawful interception of voicemails and blagging of call data, but does not admit the extent of the unlawful conduct or the specific articles that were the product of it.

• The Gulati findings: The judge relies on the previous findings of Mann J in Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch), where he found that MGN carried on phone hacking and other unlawful activities on an extensive and habitual basis across all three national titles during the period 1999-2006.

• The generic issues: The judge identifies some main issues for decision in this trial, apart from the individual claims, such as whether phone hacking and other unlawful activities were carried on before 1999 and after 2006, whether various PIs were involved in illegal or unlawful activities, and whether certain individuals in the legal department and the board of MGN knew of and concealed the wrongdoing.

• The claimant-specific claims: The judge examines each claimant’s individual claim based on the published articles and the invoices relied upon, and decides whether they have proved their case on phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering, and what damages they are entitled to.

• The limitation defence: MGN argues that some or all of the claims based on unlawful information gathering are statute-barred, meaning that they were issued too late and cannot be pursued. The judge rejects this defence for Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman, finding that they acted with reasonable diligence and that it was equitable to extend the limitation period.

• The causation issue: MGN also argues that the claimants cannot claim damages for loss caused by the publication of their private information, since they have no separate claim for the wrong of publication. The judge disagrees, finding that the publication is a relevant factor in assessing the distress and damage caused by the underlying unlawful information gathering.

• The quantum of damages: The judge awards damages to each claimant based on the principles established in Gulati, taking into account the nature, extent and frequency of the unlawful information gathering, the impact of the publication, the aggravating factors, and the mitigating factors. The judge awards the highest amount of damages to the Duke of Sussex (£300,000), followed by Ms Sanderson (£100,000), Mr Turner (£75,000) and Ms Wightman (£50,000).

• The public interest defence: MGN claims that some of its unlawful information gathering was justified by the public interest, such as exposing wrongdoing, informing the public, or contributing to a debate. The judge rejects this defence in most cases, finding that the information obtained was not of sufficient public importance, relevance, or accuracy to outweigh the claimants’ privacy rights.

• The adverse inferences: The judge draws adverse inferences from MGN’s failure to disclose or preserve relevant evidence, such as call data, emails, notebooks, and invoices, and from its failure to call certain witnesses who could have shed light on the allegations. The judge finds that MGN’s conduct was deliberate and dishonest, and that it supports the claimants’ case on phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering.

• The use of PIs: The judge finds that MGN used various PIs to obtain private information about the claimants and their associates by illegal or unlawful means, such as blagging, hacking, tracking, bugging, and bin spinning. The judge also finds that MGN paid a large amount of money to these PIs, and that some of them had criminal records or were under investigation by the police.

• The knowledge of the legal department and the board: The judge finds that some individuals who held senior positions in the legal departments of the newspapers, or on the boards of MGN or TM plc, knew of the use of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering by or on behalf of journalists, editors or editorial managers of MGN. The judge also finds that some of them turned a blind eye to the illegal or unlawful conduct and concealed it from the other members of the board, the shareholders and the public.

• The evidence of Mr Evans: The judge relies heavily on the evidence of Mr Dan Evans, a former journalist at the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World, who admitted to phone hacking and other unlawful activities in his police interviews and statements. The judge finds that Mr Evans’ evidence was credible and consistent, and that it corroborated the claimants’ case on phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering.

• The evidence of Mr Hipwell: The judge also relies on the evidence of Mr James Hipwell, a former journalist at the Daily Mirror, who testified that phone hacking was widespread and routine at the newspaper, and that Mr Piers Morgan, the editor, knew about and took the benefit of the practice. The judge finds that Mr Hipwell’s evidence was convincing and supported by other evidence.

• The evidence of Mr Partington: The judge is critical of the evidence of Mr Marcus Partington, a former in-house lawyer at the Mirror and the Sunday Mirror, and later the Group Legal Director of TM plc. The judge finds that Mr Partington was evasive and unreliable, and that he knew from 2004 that unlawful activities were being conducted by journalists or staff at MGN, but did nothing to stop them or report them.

• The evidence of Mr Vickers: The judge is also critical of the evidence of Mr Paul Vickers, the former Company Secretary and Group Legal Director of MGN and TM plc. The judge finds that Mr Vickers was defensive and unhelpful, and that he had always known about some unlawful activities, but was not interested in them unless they were criminal, which he claimed he did not know until 2013.

• The evidence of Ms Bailey: The judge is sceptical of the evidence of Ms Sly Bailey, the former CEO of TM plc. The judge finds that Ms Bailey was vague and inconsistent, and that she did not admit that she knew anything about unlawful or illegal activities, despite being in charge of the company and having a duty to ensure compliance with the law.

• The evidence of Mr Vaghela: The judge is unimpressed by the evidence of Mr Vijay Vaghela, the former Group Finance Director of Trinity, then TM plc. The judge finds that Mr Vaghela was dismissive and uncooperative, and that he failed to explain the large payments made to PIs, or the lack of proper accounting and auditing procedures to monitor them.

• The evidence of Mr Grigson: The judge is not persuaded by the evidence of Mr David Grigson, the former chairman of TM plc. The judge finds that Mr Grigson was unaware and unconcerned about the unlawful activities at MGN, and that he did not take any effective steps to investigate or remedy them, even after the Leveson Inquiry and the civil litigation.

• The evidence of Mr Morgan: The judge notes that Mr Piers Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, did not give evidence in this trial, despite being named as a defendant in the Duke of Sussex’s claim. The judge finds that Mr Morgan’s absence was significant, and that it supported the inference that he knew about and authorised phone hacking and other unlawful activities at the newspaper.

• The evidence of Mr Thomas: The judge observes that Mr Mark Thomas, the former editor of The People, also did not give evidence in this trial, despite being named as a defendant in Mr Turner’s claim. The judge finds that Mr Thomas’ absence was noteworthy, and that it supported the inference that he knew about and authorised phone hacking and other unlawful activities at the newspaper.

• The evidence of Mr Wallace: The judge remarks that Mr Richard Wallace, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, likewise did not give evidence in this trial, despite being named as a defendant in Ms Sanderson’s claim. The judge finds that Mr Wallace’s absence was conspicuous, and that it supported the inference that he knew about and authorised phone hacking and other unlawful activities at the newspaper.

• The evidence of Ms Weaver: The judge comments that Ms Tina Weaver, the former editor of the Sunday Mirror, similarly did not give evidence in this trial, despite being named as a defendant in Ms Wightman’s claim. The judge finds that Ms Weaver’s absence was striking, and that it supported the inference that she knew about and authorised phone hacking and other unlawful activities at the newspaper.

• The evidence of Mr Scott: The judge points out that Mr James Scott, the former deputy editor of the Sunday Mirror and the editor of The People, also did not give evidence in this trial, despite being named as a defendant in Ms Sanderson’s and Mr Turner’s claims. The judge finds that Mr Scott’s absence was telling, and that it supported the inference that he knew about and authorised phone hacking and other unlawful activities at the newspapers.

• The evidence of Mr Buckley: The judge mentions that Mr Nick Buckley, the former head of content of the Sunday Mirror, likewise did not give evidence in this trial, despite being named as a defendant in Ms Sanderson’s and Mr Turner’s claims. The judge finds that Mr Buckley’s absence was revealing, and that it supported the inference that he knew about and authorised phone hacking and other unlawful activities at the newspaper.

• The evidence of the claimants: The judge accepts the evidence of the four claimants, who gave oral and written evidence about their personal lives, their relationships, their phone usage, their voicemail messages, and the impact of the articles on them. The judge finds that the claimants were honest and credible, and that their evidence was consistent and corroborated by other sources.

• The evidence of the claimants’ associates: The judge also accepts the evidence of the claimants’ associates, who gave oral and written evidence about their interactions with the claimants, their phone usage, their voicemail messages, and the impact of the articles on them. The judge finds that the claimants’ associates were truthful and reliable, and that their evidence was coherent and supported by other sources.

• The evidence of the experts: The judge considers the evidence of the experts, who gave written reports and oral evidence on various technical and forensic issues, such as the analysis of the call data, the identification of the phone numbers, the interpretation of the invoices, and the estimation of the damages. The judge finds that the experts were qualified and impartial, and that their evidence was helpful and persuasive.

• The evidence of the MPS officers: The judge reviews the evidence of the MPS officers, who gave written statements and oral evidence about the investigation into phone hacking and other unlawful activities by MGN and other newspapers, and the disclosure of the relevant documents and information to the claimants and the court. The judge finds that the MPS officers were professional and diligent, and that their evidence was informative and useful.

• The evidence of the ICO officers: The judge examines the evidence of the ICO officers, who gave written statements and oral evidence about the investigation into the use of PIs by MGN and other newspapers, and the disclosure of the relevant documents and information to the claimants and the court. The judge finds that the ICO officers were competent and thorough, and that their evidence was valuable and relevant.

• The evidence of the NGN witnesses: The judge notes the evidence of the NGN witnesses, who gave written statements and oral evidence in a different litigation involving the Duke of Sussex and NGN, the publisher of The Sun and the News of the World. The judge finds that the NGN witnesses were involved in phone hacking and other unlawful activities, and that their evidence was relevant and corroborative of the claimants’ case against MGN.

• The evidence of the other witnesses: The judge acknowledges the evidence of the other witnesses, who gave written statements and oral evidence on various matters relating to the claimants’ case, such as the identification of the PIs, the verification of the invoices, the authentication of the emails, and the confirmation of the articles. The judge finds that the other witnesses were knowledgeable and cooperative, and that their evidence was helpful and supportive of the claimants’ case.

• The jurisdiction issue: MGN challenges the jurisdiction of the court to hear the Duke of Sussex’s claim, arguing that he is domiciled in the USA and that the court has no power to grant an injunction against him. The judge rejects this challenge, finding that the Duke of Sussex is domiciled in England and that the court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction against him.

• The limitation issue: MGN raises a limitation defence to Ms Sanderson’s and Ms Wightman’s claims, arguing that they are statute-barred because they were issued more than six years after the date of publication of the articles complained of, or the date when the claimants had actual or constructive knowledge of the unlawful information gathering. The judge rejects this defence, finding that the claimants did not have the requisite knowledge of the facts relevant to their claim until after 21 May 2015, when Gulati was handed down, or that MGN had deliberately concealed the facts from the claimants.

• The causation issue: MGN also disputes the causation issue, namely whether damages awarded to claimants for phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering can include loss resulting from the actual publication of articles containing the private information thereby acquired, even when there is no separate claim that can now be pursued based on the wrong of publication. The judge rejects this argument, finding that the publication is part of the injury caused by the misuse of private information, and that the claimants are entitled to be compensated for the full extent of the harm they suffered.

• The quantum of damages: The judge awards damages to each claimant based on the principles established in Gulati, taking into account the nature, extent and frequency of the unlawful information gathering, the impact of the publication, the aggravating factors, and the mitigating factors. The judge awards the highest amount of damages to the Duke of Sussex (£300,000), followed by Ms Sanderson (£100,000), Mr Turner (£75,000) and Ms Wightman (£50,000).

• The other relief: The judge also grants other relief to the claimants, such as an injunction to restrain MGN from further misusing their private information, an order for delivery up or destruction of any materials containing their private information, and an order for disclosure of any further information relating to the unlawful information gathering.

• The declaration of infringement: The judge also declares that MGN has infringed the claimants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.

• The judge’s observations: The judge makes some general observations on the conduct and culture of MGN, the impact and importance of the case, and the role and responsibility of the press. The judge criticises MGN’s “casual disregard for the law and the rights of others”, and its lack of remorse or apology for its wrongdoing. The judge praises the claimants for their courage and perseverance in pursuing their claims, and recognises the distress and damage they suffered as a result of MGN’s unlawful activities. The judge also emphasises the need for the press to respect the privacy rights of individuals, and to act in accordance with the law and ethical standards.