Why is Prince Harry appearing at the High Court?

The Duke of Sussex arrived at London's High Court on Tuesday morning for his trial against a British tabloid newspaper over alleged phone hacking. Prince Harry, 38, dashed from his vehicle into the court, after being greeted at the door by his barrister David Sherborne. The father-of-two, who failed to turn up at the court on Monday, declined to answer questions from a crowd of waiting journalists. The prince will give evidence from the witness box later on Tuesday. The duke is among more than 100 high-profile figures who have brought a lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over contested allegations of unlawful information gathering. King Charles III’s son , who is fifth in line to the throne, could have given evidence by video link from his home in the US but is understood to have favoured an in-person grilling by MGN’s lawyers. He is one of a large group including actors, TV personalities, sports stars and singers who are suing the publisher of the Daily Mirror , the Sunday Mirror and Sunday People . They are seeking compensation over allegations MGN was involved in the unlawful sourcing of their personal information for stories. Claims brought by four people, including Prince Harry, are being heard in a civil trial as “representative” cases of the types of allegations facing the publisher, which could affect the outcome of other claims. It has been alleged that MGN’s journalists were linked to voicemail interception, colloquially known as phone hacking, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities. Prince Harry’s case covers the period from 1995 to 2011. His lawyers have told the trial that such practices were “habitual and widespread” amid a “flood of illegality”. At the beginning of the legal fight, MGN admitted and apologised for one instance of the Sunday People unlawfully seeking details about Harry’s personal life and accepted his entitlement to compensation. It conceded that a private investigator was instructed by an MGN journalist at the newspaper to collect facts about Harry’s activities at Chinawhite nightclub one night in February 2004. The publisher has denied Harry’s further allegations, arguing there is a lack of evidence to support them. MGN says board members have denied knowledge of unlawful information-gathering activities and claims there is “no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, of voicemail interception” in any of the four claims chosen as representative cases – some of which it claims are brought too late. The trial, taking place before the judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, has been focused on witnesses and evidence relating to the “generic” allegations against MGN that feature in claims against it. Over two and a half weeks, the court has heard from a former MGN chief executive denying involvement in covering up unlawful practices, while an ex-director and former lawyer at the publisher defended their accounts of when they became aware of such activity. Ex-private investigators and former MGN journalists have also faced questions over the “dark arts” and “illegal” methods allegedly used to source information, the knowledge of MGN editors and executives and whether certain stories were legitimately obtained. The trial will focus on the representative claims, beginning with the duke. Prince Harry was expected to be at court on Monday but did not appear. Mr Sherborne, representing the duke and the other claimants, said as the hearing began on Monday that Prince Harry had flown to the UK from Los Angeles last night, as he was celebrating his daughter Lilibet’s second birthday on Sunday. Mr Justice Fancourt, the judge hearing the case, said he was “a little surprised” to hear the prince would not be attending court on the first day. The judge said he gave a direction earlier in the trial that witnesses should be available the day before their evidence was due to be heard in case the legal teams’ opening speeches ran short. Andrew Green KC, for MGN, said he wished to have at least a day and a half to cross-examine the duke and was “deeply troubled” he would not be attending before Tuesday. On Tuesday, Prince Harry's lawyers and MGN’s legal team will set out their opening arguments on his case, and the duke is expected to give evidence from the witness box. Prince Harry's visit is expected to be brief, just like his trip home for his father's coronation in May. The cross-examination is likely to focus on Buckingham Palace, with MGN suggesting that some details it had gathered originated from royal aides. Andrew Lownie, a royal biographer, told The National that the prince is “playing with fire” in his legal battles with parts of the British media. He said Prince Harry “blames the media for the death of his mother” and his campaign to take on the press is a “distraction” from the monarchy's mostly-positive relationship with journalists. Gregory Monk, a solicitor specialising in reputation and privacy at Vardags law firm in London, said the king's son should not expect to be treated differently from any other person in the witness box when he faces MGN's lawyers. “You can expect them to treat Harry with respect, but they won’t do him any favours,” Mr Monk told The National. “They are there to win for their client.” Prince Harry told ITV's Tom Bradby that it is his “life's mission” to change certain elements of the media, a campaign which he said his father had likened to a “suicide mission”. No. In March, Harry made a surprise appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice in London amid a preliminary hearing in a similar case he is bringing against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail. The Duke is also suing News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun , over alleged unlawful information gathering, and is bringing a legal challenge against the Home Office about his security arrangements in the UK. The trial is due to conclude by the end of June and Mr Justice Fancourt is expected to give his written ruling later in the year.

Why is Prince Harry appearing at the High Court?

Prince Harry is among more than 100 people suing a publisher over alleged unlawful information gathering