This is the first of Prince Harry’s three phone-hacking cases against British newspaper groups to go to trial, with the royal waiting to hear whether the courts will allow him to proceed with two separate cases against the parent companies of the Sun and the Daily Mail. Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of phone hacking claims against Mirror Group Newspapers at the high court in London. 11.17 BST Second day of phone hacking trial gets under way The claimants have not provided any direct evidence of a member of the board or legal department making a false or dishonest statement. Lawyers for the publisher say they have provided evidence from board members denying awareness of unlawful information-gathering activities.Īndrew Green KC, for MGN, said in written submissions the duke and others had made “serious allegations” of dishonesty with legal arguments that “are far from adequate”. They have a very clear vested interest in this not becoming public and no-one being able to bring a claim. Sherborne said it had to be borne in mind “the ramifications” for shareholders if this came out. He told the high court: “The knowledge of the board grew as the narrative progressed” amid the “growing body of knowledge about the widespread activity”. Sherborne claimed such practices were authorised “at the highest levels” of the company. He also said this morning that the board of MGN had a “vested interest” in the “growing” knowledge of alleged unlawful information-gathering not becoming public. ![]() Sherborne told the court these followed the pattern and said they suggested Piers Morgan must have known what was going on – indeed, that he was “directly” involved. Other examples included stories about Les Dennis and Amanda Holden, as well as Prince Michael of Kent. He said the People ran the story about phone calls the former footballer had made, then backed down when he and his wife complained. One example he gave was of a story about David Beckham. Sherborne says this indicates that staff knew what had gone into gathering the information was illegal and could not risk revealing it when defending their stories. He told the court the pattern involved a story running without its subjects having been approached for comment, then the papers backing down when threatened with formal action. He says the court will hear evidence of an “enormous number” of illegal activities being commissioned by Mirror Group Newspapers. Sherborne has been outlining the case he will make and has focused on several examples where he says senior staff at Mirror Group Newspapers acted in a way that makes it clear they knew their stories had been obtained by illegal means. Here’s a summary of what he’s told the court during today’s hearing: ![]() It’s the same sort of effect you see in a mirrored office building at night - if there is a light on in one of the offices, you can see into that office just fine.The court is rising for the day, with Sherborne still partway through his opening. If the lights in the suspect’s room were suddenly turned out, or the lights in the observation room suddenly turned on, then the Two Way Mirror would become a window. As a result, the suspect sees only his own reflection and the police see into the suspect’s room clearly. The observation room containing the police, on the other hand, is kept dark so that little to no light gets through the glass. The room the suspect is in is kept very brightly lit so that the light in the room reflects off the mirror’s surface. Why can’t the suspect see those watching him behind the mirror? The answer lies in the level of lighting in both rooms. We have all seen a cop drama TV show or film where a criminal suspect is interrogated while police watch from behind a mirror. This allows a percentage of light to pass through and reflects the rest. A Two Way Mirror, a transparent mirror on one side and reflective on the other, is created by placing a layer of semi-transparent film of aluminum on an acrylic substrate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |