HARRY PHONE CLAIM FIGHT
been anyone, from myself, my brother”. Asked if he was aware MGN denies one of its suppliers was involved in unlawful information gathering, Harry replied he was.
The barrister questioned the Duke about a Mirror article in September 1996 entitled “Diana so sad on Harry’s big day”. He said as Harry was not issued with a mobile until he went to Eton in 1998, the article could not have involved illegal interception.
The Duke replied: “That’s incorrect. My security at school had a separate room with a land line.” He said “most Sunday nights”, after being dropped off by his mother “the first thing we would do is to use the phone to ring her... in floods of tears”.
Harry also said it could have been Diana who was hacked. Mr Green replied “that’s just speculation you’ve come up with now”.
The Duke said in his book Spare, “a school mate must have told someone who told someone” a story about him having a haircut which was reported.
Mr Green said that “reflects the reality that, because of who you are, there have always been many different routes by which information about you… is and has been communicated to the press”. Harry responded: “Now, it seems that probably wasn’t the case and sadly a lot of those friends who I became paranoid with at the time, are no longer friends.”
The Duke was asked about why he has complained about articles in MGN titles when the same information had been put out by other outlets. He said he believed MGN journalists used unlawful methods to get “exclusive” angles.
He added: “My understanding is that during this period the hacking was done on burner phones so there is no call data and most of the evidence has been destroyed, so I have little to go on.”
Harry left the building at 4.53pm. The Duke, 38, who is suing MGN for damages, is due back this morning for final questioning.
An MGN spokesman said: “Where historical wrongdoing has taken place, we have made admissions, take full responsibility and apologise unreservedly, but we will vigorously defend against allegations of wrongdoing where our journalists acted lawfully.
“MGN is now part of a very different company. We are committed to acting with integrity and our objective in this trial is to allow both the business and our journalists to move forward from events that took place many years ago.” The trial continues