British gossip paper apologizes for ‘illegal intelligence gathering’ on Prince Harry!

スポンサーリンク
Entertainment

Last Updated on 05/13/2023 by てんしょく飯

 

Trial over phone tapping and other charges finally opens: ‘No one should be subjected to this’

 

スポンサーリンク

The publisher of the Daily Mirror has apologized to Prince Harry.

On Wednesday (10 May), the court case brought by Prince Harry of the British Royal Family and others against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), publisher of the Daily Mirror and other newspapers, began.

 

In the court case, Prince Harry alleges that the company has in the past engaged in illegal information gathering, including hacking voicemails and tapping phones.

 

In court documents filed by MGN, the company stated that it “unconditionally apologizes and acknowledges that Prince Harry is entitled to appropriate compensation” for one of these intelligence-gathering activities.

 

MGN admits that in 2004, the Sunday People newspaper, which is owned by the company, paid a private detective £75 to collect information about Prince Harry at a nightclub.

 

The company “clearly had something to do with Prince Harry’s behaviour at the nightclub, but we do not know what information this related to”, but added: “We accept that the payment to the private detective was an instruction to gather illegal information”.

 

The court case, in which four celebrities, including Prince Harry, are plaintiffs, MGN denies hacking voicemails. The company also argued that too much time had passed to bring the case to court, as the period in question was between 1991 and 2011.

 

David Shebourne, counsel for Prince Harry, said of Prince Harry’s claim against MGN: “It is not just a question of the period 1995-2011. It should also be about the activities that were taking place during that period”, noting that the way the information was collected was “too intrusive”.

 

David Shebourne, who claimed that “no one should be subjected to this”, added that the information gathering that Prince Harry and others saw as problematic was “habitual and widespread” among journalists and editors.

 

Loading...

コメント