Prince Harry was a victim of phone hacking carried out by publishers of the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror newspapers, a High Court judge has ruled.

Fifteen of 33 articles brought by the Duke of Sussex in his legal claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) were found to be the product of phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.

He has been awarded £140,600 in damages.

Judge Mr Justice Fancourt said that Harry “had a tendency to assume” that everything published was the product of phone hacking because the practice was rife.

But he noted that phone hacking was “not the only journalistic tool.”

The Duke’s case centred on these 33 articles, dated between 1996 and 2009, that he claimed were the product of phone hacking or “blagging”, which is obtaining information by deception.

Delivering his ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt told the High Court that this happened to a “modest extent” but was “carefully controlled by certain people” from the end of 2003 to April 2009.

Duke’s phone hacked ‘to modest extent’

The judge said: “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.”

The High Court ruled there was “extensive” phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers from 2006 to 2011, “even to some extent” during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.

Mr Justice Fancourt found that unlawful Information gathering was “widespread” at all three MGN newspapers from 1996 onwards.

It is the first major ruling to be handed down in the Duke’s crusade against tabloid newspaper publishers.

He sued MGN for unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, citing 147 articles he alleged had been obtained illegally. They concerned, variously, his relationship with his family and ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, a few injuries and illnesses, his military service and allegations of drug use.

Some 33 articles, dated between 1996 and 2009, were selected for examination during the seven-week trial.

Historic court appearance

Harry had sought around £440,000 in damages, while MGN argued he would only be entitled to around £37,000 if the judge ruled in his favour.

The claim includes up to £320,000 if his case is successful in relation to all 33 stories as well as further damages of around £120,000 relating to episodes of unlawful information gathering linked to MGN payment records – including records said to involve the targeting of his late mother, Diana Princess of Wales.

The Duke could be awarded more if the judge concludes he is also entitled to “aggravated damages” for additional distress or injury to feelings.

The high profile case was heard throughout May and June, with evidence from dozens of witnesses, including former journalists, editors, private investigators and MGN executives.

The Duke made history when he took to the witness stand, the first senior member of the Royal family to do so in 132 years.

‘I sued to protect Meghan’

He revealed in court that he was motivated to sue the tabloids in order to protect his wife, Meghan, and to “somehow find a way to stop the abuse, intrusion and hate” he said was directed towards them.

He used his 55-page witness statement to make sweeping statements about the state of the British press, having previously insisted that he would make it his life’s work to reform the industry.

“Our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” he said.

“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.”

In closing submissions, MGN said it was impossible not to have “enormous sympathy” for Prince Harry given the media intrusion he has been subjected to throughout his life.

However, it said he had failed to identify any examples of phone hacking or unlawful information gathering at its newspapers.

The publisher accused him of bringing the litigation “as a vehicle to seek to reform the British media” as part of his ongoing crusade.

The Duke’s case was heard alongside similar claims by actor Michael Turner, who is known professionally as Michael Le Vell and best known for playing Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, actress Nikki Sanderson and comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife Fiona Wightman.

The findings made in relation to all four will be used to determine the outcome of dozens of claims brought by others against MGN, including actor Ricky Tomlinson, the estate of the late singer George Michael, ex-footballer and television presenter Ian Wright and Girls Aloud singer Cheryl.

Following the ruling, an MGN spokesperson said: “We welcome today’s judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago.

“Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”