Prince Harry gives evidence in London phone hacking case

We’ve now stopped our live updates on Prince Harry’s historic courtroom appearance, as he became the first senior British royal to give evidence on a witness stand in 132 years.

His cross-examination will resume on Wednesday. In the meantime, read our main takeaways on what we learned from today’s proceedings.

Prince Harry leaves the Rolls Building of the High Court in London on Tuesday.

Harry became the first senior member of the British royal family to take to the witness box in more than a century on Tuesday, enduring a grueling day of cross-examination in his attempt to bring a reckoning on the more dubious practices of the UK tabloid press.

The prince submitted 33 articles where he alleged that media outlets owned by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) had engaged in unlawful information gathering or fact checking.

However, after the first few exchanges, the rhythm of the cross-examination began to progress along predictable lines. Here are some of the main themes:

* Uncertain timelines: Andrew Green, the barrister representing MGN, began by asking the prince when he had seen each article that he alleged had caused him “distress.” This became Green’s first line of defense. “If you don’t have any recollection of reading the article at the time, how do you say that this article caused you distress?” he asked the Duke of Sussex. Harry repeatedly claimed that he could not remember the first instance he had come across each article, as many of them were written more than 20 years ago.

Instead, Harry argued that the press coverage fed into a “general environment” that played a “destructive role” during his childhood and adolescence. Green, however, tried to press the prince on this point, asking if some of the articles had really caused Harry distress during this time – or if he had only come across them in preparation for this civil case.

* Not just The Mirror: Green tried to demonstrate that MGN newspapers were among many other papers covering the prince’s life – and in many cases simply retold stories that were already “in the public domain.” The barrister often pointed to articles published by The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, and other outlets, to suggest that the Daily Mirror had not engaged in nefarious practices of its own in many instances. Harry conceded that he could see “similarities” between some of these stories. When asked why he had not launched complaints about the outlets that first put the stories into the public domain, Harry said he had not been made aware of each of them.

* “Ask the journalist”: Green pressed Harry on several occasions to specify whose phone he believes was hacked to obtain private information. But most exchanges ended with Harry claiming that Green would have to “ask the journalists” if they had engaged in phone hacking. “I don’t believe as a witness it’s my job to construct the article or instruct which parts were unlawfully obtained or weren’t, the journalist should be doing that,” Harry told the court.

In a more heated moment, Green asked: “Are we, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation?” Harry responded: “I don’t believe so.”

The court will return tomorrow, when Green will resume his cross-examination of the prince.

MGN barrister Andrew Green has paused his cross-examination as the court has closed for the day. Green will resume his questions when the court returns at 10.30am local time (5.30am ET) tomorrow morning.

Green warned that it will be “quite a race” to finish his questioning of Prince Harry by midday.

David Sherborne, Harry’s lawyer, also said he was “concerned about the time I have to cross-examine” Daily Mirror reporter Jane Kerr.

“If we have to go into a further day, we will,” the judge confirmed.

The judge also instructed Prince Harry not to discuss his evidence overnight.

Prince Harry arrives at the Rolls Building of the High Court in London on Tuesday.

In the conclusion to his witness statement, Harry criticized the state of British journalism, which he claimed has hit “rock bottom,” and outlined his motivations for bringing this case against MGN.

“In the same vein, I am bringing this claim, not because I hate the tabloid press or even necessarily a section of it, but in order to properly hold the people who have hijacked those privileges, which come with being a member of the press, to account for their actions.”

He said he has had a “front row seat” to witness the deterioration of press standards.

“Because they have showed no willingness to change, I feel that I need to make sure that this unlawful behavior is exposed, because obviously I don’t want anybody else going through the same thing that I’ve been going through on a personal level.”

Harry said that his personal struggle has broader implications.

“Democracy fails when your press fails to scrutinize and hold the government accountable, and instead choose to get into bed with them so they can ensure the status quo,” the duke added. 

An alleged argument between Prince Harry and his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy over an infamous Halloween costume worn by the duke when he was 20 was leaked by her uncle, not obtained by phone hacking, the lawyers for MGN have asserted in court.

The article which followed the publication of a photo of Harry wearing a Nazi uniform at a party in The Sun newspaper, claimed that Davy “wasn’t happy at all,” about the costume or about his alleged flirting with another woman, a “brunette who had her legs draped across Harry.”

The duke who was described at the time as holding a cigarette and looking “pretty happy,” alleges that his phone must have been hacked as he and Davy were in a long-distance relationship conducted a majority of the time on the phone. 

MGN barrister Andrew Green alleged that the source however was Davy’s uncle, Paul Davy, based on redacted copy of the story obtained from the journalist.

Harry responded by saying that assumption was based on the journalist being truthful about the source of the story, which the duke does not believe to be the case. 

In his witness statement, Prince Harry complained about the Daily Mirror’s coverage of his holiday with then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, the daughter of Charles Davy, a Zimbabwean businessman who ran a big game hunting safari.

The article was published on December 13, 2004 with the headline “When Harry met Daddy.” It reported that Harry was “introduced to Chelsy’s father on the previous day, that I was enjoying a holiday with Chelsy in Mozambique and that we had flown over to the island of Bazaruto to meet other members of her family, including her mother Beverly, and brother Sean,” according to the prince’s witness statement.

“It also states I would be flying back to Britain on December 19,” the statement added.

“The article itself even suggests that the Defendant’s journalists had contacted the Palace to confirm their story and was told by Clarence House that matters of my relationship were ‘private,’” Harry said in his statement.

He also questioned how the journalist came to know that “Chelsy and I had been dating for eight months,” given that Chelsy’s name had only been in the public domain for “less than a month.”

Green, however, pointed Harry to an interview given to the Mail on Sunday by Paul Davy, Chelsy Davy’s uncle, on December 12 – the day before the story in the Mirror was published.

The earlier article named the resort that Harry was staying at, and included details about his plans to meet Davy’s parents.

Prince Harry has testified that an article about an argument he had with his brother William, over a proposed meeting with their mother’s former butler Paul Burrell, contained information gained by hacking into a voicemail Harry left William.

The article which accurately depicts the argument between the brothers planted “seeds of distrust between brothers” them by exposing such a private moment, Harry said in court. 

“The article accurately sets out the position that my brother was open to fixing a meeting with Paul to discuss his ongoing exposés about our mother, however I had made up my mind about the kind of person I thought Paul was and was firmly against meeting him at this point in my life,” Harry said in his witness statement. 

Harry alleged that the information in the article quoting a royal source, revealed his “exact private feelings including that I was “dead against any meeting” and that a meeting would be “pandering to Burrell’s attention-seeking and self-interest.” 

The duke added he also would have used the phrase “two-face s***, as is reported and believe this could have been lifted directly from a voicemail I had left.”

Prince Harry sits at the High Court in London in this courtroom sketch released on Tuesday.

When being questioned about an article by British journalist Robert Jobson, who has reported on the royals for decades and written several books on the royal family, Prince Harry questioned the credentials of some royal reporters.

“I wouldn’t regard him as a specialist, no,” Harry told the court. 

He also said that he wouldn’t call Jobson’s contacts within the Palace “sources.”

“They may be imaginary sources,” he said.

Harry has made versions of this critique before – most recently in the Netflix documentary he made with his wife, the Duchess of Sussex.

In the documentary, a friend of the couple said she doesn’t “understand” what the term royal expert “means.”

“Someone can just call themselves a royal expert?” the friend asked.

“Royal correspondent is a title that is given to a select group of journalists just so that those newspapers can use them and their stories with royal correspondent as credible fact, just so that whatever the papers print can come with extra credibility,” Harry said in the documentary.

Prince Harry has repeatedly alleged that tabloids belonging to MGN would build on stories already in existence and push them “further” by gaining more detail illegally.

In one of the 33 articles being examined in court during Harry’s testimony, the duke alleges that private details of his 18th birthday were included in addition to the interview he was obliged to give the press on the occasion. When pressed on which parts of the story that Harry alleges were obtained by phone hacking, the duke responded that he “relied on his legal team,” for that information.

“This was obviously an ideal occasion for anyone listening into my messages to continue to do so in order to discover what additional private information could exclusively be reported,” he claims in his witness statement.

Green is making the argument that other media outlets had similar coverage to the identified MGN articles – citing similar quotes from Palace spokespeople. Harry has said on several occasions that he did not know or had not read those articles – and continues to argue “suspicious” activity for how MGN journalists obtained information.

Regarding Palace spokespeople comments, Harry argues that they responded to questions which Harry argues were formed after obtaining information unlawfully. Harry said “the palace did not have a systematic habit of talking about private matters, in fact it is quite the opposite.”

Prince Harry was questioned about a December 2003 article in the Daily Mirror, containing details about his gap year in Noosa, Australia, headlined “Beach Bum Harry.”

The article was “accompanied by various photographs of me in the sea,” and contained “reports that after leaving the ranch where I’d undertaken work on my gap year, I had gone to the beach resort of Noosa with some friends.”

“I remember this day so clearly, we were staying in a house and, after visiting Steve Irwin’s (Australia) Zoo in the morning, we had gone out on to the beach in front of the house in the afternoon. It was a public beach, but not busy or popular so I’m unclear how anyone had known we were there, to be in the right place at the right time to take photographs,” Harry said in his witness statement.

But Green told Harry in the courtroom that a spokesperson at the Palace had told reporters that Harry had been in Noosa, days before the article was published in various outlets.

Green asked Harry if his case was that the Daily Mirror obtained information for its article by voicemail interception or unlawful information gathering.

Green also pointed Harry to a 2018 article in the Courier Mail, a local Australian paper, headlined “Journalist recalls the Sunshine Coast hunt for Prince Harry.”

“I remember the fuss in 2003 when Prince Harry was reported to be on the Coast and staying in Noosa,” wrote journalist Frank Wilkie.

“The assignment for the week? Find him.”

Green suggested that such practices are commonplace among local press and the paparazzi.

Harry said that nonetheless he found it “disturbing” that the press would be looking for him.

Prince Harry's memoir "Spare" is seen for sale at a Barnes & Noble in Chicago in January.

Prince Harry’s memoir “Spare” was earlier used against him by MGN’s lawyer, Andrew Green, who read excerpts of the book to prove that the duke has admitted that the palace often cooperates with the media on certain stories.

In the book, Harry writes that Buckingham palace will sometimes “play ball” with the tabloids and gives an example of a story in the now defunct News of the World about allegations of drug taking by the duke.

In making the point that the palace would provide information to the tabloids, often without Harry’s knowledge, Green read parts of the book which claim that a palace ‘spin doctor’ cooperated on the story, arguing therefore the information was not gained unlawfully. 

Court proceedings have resumed after a short break.

Prince Harry is depicted in a court sketch while giving evidence in London on Tuesday.

Prince Harry has objected to an article published on April 20 2003 by the People, a tabloid owned by MGN, with the headline “Matured Harry is a godfather.” The article reported that Harry had been asked to be the godfather to the son of Harry Legge-Bourke (the brother of Harry’s former nanny, Tiggy). 

The article claimed that Legge-Bourke’s wife, Iona, agreed that Harry was “adult enough to cope,” and that the Prince’s father, Charles, was “keen” on the idea and thought it could be “the making” of him.

During the cross-examination, Green pointed Harry to a quote in the article where Legge-Bourke referred to the prince’s “approachability and easy-going manner,” and that he expected the prince to attend the Christening.

Green then showed Harry a story on the same matter published in the Sunday Telegraph a week prior, on April 13 2003. The earlier article contained the same quotes from Legge-Bourke.

Green suggested that this shows that the information “was in the public domain via the Sunday Telegraph,” before appearing in the article in the People that Harry complained about.

Harry said, “I see the similarities” between the two articles.

In his witness statement, Harry claimed “it is reasonable to assume that the People had the means to hack Tiggy and her husband as a result and likely continued to do so. I now believe that this is either how this article came about, or was a means to glean additional info for the article after it appeared elsewhere.”

But Green provided evidence of an invoice showing a payment of £200 to a freelancer called Chris Murphy. Green suggested it is likely that Murphy wrote the story for the Sunday Telegraph before sending it to the People.

Green asked Harry if he thought this was indicative of “unlawful information gathering.” The prince said he thought it was.

Harry was also asked to clarify whether his witness statement had been written by him or for him by his legal team.

“The whole statement was written by me,” Harry responded.

An unnamed member of the court has requested a break. The cross-examination will resume in a few minutes.

MGN barrister Andrew Green resumed his cross-examination after lunch by questioning the Duke of Sussex about his objections to a Daily Mirror article published in March 2002, headlined “Harry’s sick with ‘kissing disease’” – a story about his contracting glandular fever.

The article “reported that doctors had confirmed the diagnosis following a blood test some two weeks prior, that I would have symptoms for at least six weeks and that I had been teased by my friends and brother,” according to Harry’s witness statement.

However, Green then quoted to Harry a statement from a St. James’s Palace spokeswoman before the article was published, which said: “I can confirm that he [Harry] has glandular fever and is taking doctor’s advice.”

Green put it to Harry that “the Palace wouldn’t have given these quotes if it objected to them being reported,” but Harry responded that he was nonetheless “suspicious” about how the article was obtained.

Harry was then asked why he had objected to the article published by the Daily Mirror, but not to other “similar” articles about the same event, published in The Sun and Edinburgh Evening News, among other outlets.

The prince said he had not been made aware of the other articles.

Members of the court have now taken their seats and Prince Harry’s cross-examination has resumed.

The court has now taken a break for lunch. The cross-examination will resume at 2pm local time (9am ET).

Seven out of 33 articles that will be examined in the courtroom have been discussed.

During his cross-examination, Andrew Green asked Prince Harry whether the claims he was bringing against Daily Mirror journalists are “unfair.”

“You are accusing the journalists of engaging in criminal activity,” Green said – namely, phone hacking and unlawful information gathering.

However, Green claimed that much of the information in the specific Daily Mirror articles have been reported first in other outlets, like the News of the World, or had been “provided by the Palace.”

“You’d have to ask the journalists,” Harry replied.

Prince Harry was questioned about an article published in 2000 in the Daily Mirror’s “3am” section, detailing his visit to a gastropub in Fulham, southwest London, on his birthday.

The 3am section brought readers “the hottest gossip from the biggest showbiz parties,” according to the Mirror’s website.

Harry told the court he believed that “the 3am section of the Mirror has quite a lot of evidence against them of unlawful activity.”

“I have no idea how this article and the elements of this article made their way into the newspaper,” he said, expressing his dismay that a photographer could have learned about his “private lunch” and that a story about it could have ended up in the Mirror.

Green suggested that Harry would have walked along the street to the pub, but Harry claimed “I don’t walk on streets,” as he travels by car for security reasons.

Green also suggested that a photographer might have heard that Harry was in the pub and decided to travel to the venue – or that information could have come from chef Ed Baines, the pub’s celebrity owner.

Harry said he was not aware who the chef was, but that he would have been “quite busy” working, and so was unlikely to have contacted the press about his visit.

In his written evidence, Prince Harry objected to an article published in 2000 as an exclusive in the Daily Mirror, with the headline “Snap. Harry Breaks thumb like William.”

“This article, which was published on page 11 of the Daily Mirror, written by Jane Kerr, reported that I had chipped a bone in my thumb,” the duke wrote in his written evidence.

Harry said “the level of detail” in the piece is “surprising” – “as is the specific comment made by the Defendant’s journalists that I had been told by doctors not to play football for a ‘few weeks’.”

“This isn’t attributed to the Palace spokesperson, which seems odd although any comments from the Palace would have been strictly ‘need to know’,” Harry said in his written evidence.

However, during the cross examination, barrister Andrew Green pointed the prince to a public statement made by a Palace spokesperson, before it was reported in the Mirror.

The spokesperson, addressing the news of Harry’s injury, told reporters that he was “in good spirits,” but “frustrated that he can’t play sport” for a while, according to Green.

Green asked Harry if he maintained that this article “is the result of phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.” Harry said he maintains it is the result of “both.”

When asked whom he thought had engaged in these sort of activities, Harry said: “I believe it was either probably [the reporter, Jane Kerr] herself or she got someone else to do the dirty work for her.”

“Whose phone do you think was hacked?” Green asked Harry. The prince initially said he was unsure, then suggested it could have been the doctor’s phone.

Harry replied: “I don’t believe so.”

Prince Harry gives evidence, as pictured in a court sketch, at the Rolls Buildings in London, on June 6.

MGN barrister Andrew Green’s line of questioning so far has centered on the issue that Harry is basing his claims on articles that caused him distress, yet the duke has been unable to specifically recall the time he first read each article, or the specific emotional effect they had on him.

In the opening exchanges, Harry was pressed on an article he mentioned in his witness statement, published in 1996. He was asked whether he had read the article at the time – shortly after his 12th birthday – or whether he first read it in preparation to appear in court.

This was the first of several such questions.

Harry has, however, claimed that the “thousands” of articles written about him contributed to a “general effect,” which played a “destructive role” during his childhood and adolescence.

Green has also pressed Harry on whether the articles he claims caused him “distress” contained information that could only have been obtained through nefarious means – such as phone hacking – or whether the information was in the public domain.

Harry has claimed that a number of details in the articles “seemed incredibly suspicious.”

Green, however, has responded that much of the information had been made public in advance, in some occasions through spokespeople at Buckingham Palace, or through reporters attending public events. Green claims that this sort of reporting is in no way “suspicious.”

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex leaves from the Royal Courts of Justice, Britain's High Court, in central London on March 27.

While this is Prince Harry’s first appearance in a court case against the British media, it may not be his last.

The case against MGN is one of several lawsuits filed by Harry and his wife, Meghan, in their long-running battle with British tabloids, which they have accused of breaches of privacy and publishing false stories.

The pair has filed at least seven lawsuits against British and US media organizations since 2019, including Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN), according to Reuters. NGN publishes the Sun and used to produce News of the World, which was shut down in 2011 over a phone hacking scandal.

In March, Harry appeared at a court hearing in his case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering, which that group has denied.

A court sketch depicts Prince Harry being cross examined by the lawyer for Mirror Group Newspapers, Andrew Green, as he gives evidence at the Rolls Buildings in London, on Tuesday, June 6.

Harry has spent the morning in court under tough cross-examination from the lawyer for Mirror Group Newspapers, Andrew Green.

Green’s manner is forensic. He has been taking the duke through a series of specific articles that Harry is complaining about. In his responses, Harry has been quietly spoken – although at one point joking that making his way through the various felt like a “workout.”

At times, it has been uncomfortable to watch, because Prince Harry does not always seem to be across the detail. Green has been pressing him on how much distress particular articles caused him when they were published. Harry can’t always recall reading them at the time.

Instead Harry falls back on his general argument that intrusive press coverage played a “destructive role” during his childhood and adolescence.

Green has also been attempting to undermine Harry’s contention that information in the articles came from phone hacking, by pointing out that much of the news had already been reported in other outlets and confirmed by official sources.

Members of the court have reported that they have struggled to hear Prince Harry’s responses during his cross-examination.

As the court returned from a 10-minute break, the duke was asked to raise his voice.

Harry has also been appointed a court employee to assist him with a large bundle of legal documents used in the defense’s cross-examination.

The duke had appeared slightly frustrated on several occasions when trying to locate specific pages in the evidence bundles.

Prince Harry said that “some editors and journalists do have blood on their hands” for the distress caused to him and “perhaps, inadvertently death,” in reference to his mother Princess Diana. 

He was responding to MGN lawyer Andrew Green, who asked Harry who the duke believed had “blood on their hands,” due to the impact of the articles.

Harry is testifying that some of the information in the articles could not have been obtained in any other way except for unlawfully. One example he gave is the case of an article which reported that Harry and William missed an event held for their great grandmother’s 100th birthday to go rock climbing. 

Green challenged Harry that the information was already in the public domain as their absence was confirmed by Buckingham Palace, to which Harry said was issued in response to tabloid reporting.

Referring to part of the story which gave details on the location of the rock climbing trip, Harry said he is not sure whose phone could have been hacked but then added that it could have been his.

The court is now taking a 10-minute break. Prince Harry was told that he must not discuss his evidence with anybody during this time.

During his cross-examination by MGN’s lawyer Andrew Green, Prince Harry has repeatedly struggled to locate the relevant parts of various documents pertaining to the questions.

Green’s questioning has often related to specific claims made by the prince in his written evidence, which are indexed in a number of bundles of paperwork.

On various occasions, Green has directed Harry to specific points of information that the prince has taken some time to locate.

“Go to DOS 2, please. Tab 37. Page 208,” was one of Green’s such directions.

The prince joked that Green was subjecting him to a “workout.”

Green also asked the prince whether he would like somebody to assist him in navigating the paperwork.

Harry later said that he would be “relying on the screen” to refer to the relevant bits of information.

Andrew Green, the lawyer for MGN, asked Harry about his allegations that certain articles published by the Daily Mirror “caused him to be paranoid and to distrust those around him.”

Harry said he had been “made aware” of many of the articles “unfortunately, by the behavior and reaction of my inner circle.”

The duke said when information he had shared in confidence with only a few members of his inner circle entered the public domain, “your circle of friends starts to shrink.”

Prince Harry is pictured arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on June 6.

The duke was asked by Andrew Green about whether an article published by the Daily Mirror about how the young prince had responded to his parents’ divorce contained information which may have been “indicative of phone hacking.”

The article in question was published on September 16, 1996, with the headline “Diana so sad on Harry’s big day,” according to the prince’s written evidence.

It contained details of his mother, Diana, the Princess of Wales, coming to visit the prince at Ludgrove school on his 12th birthday, and included details about how long she spent at the school with him.

Harry told the court that some of the details in the piece “seemed incredibly suspicious.”

However, Green pressed the prince on whether a member of the press – knowing the date of the Prince’s birthday – could have visited the school on this date and learned details of the Princess of Wales’ visit by witnessing her entering and exiting.

Harry did not answer in any certainty.

The article in question also claimed that Harry was responding to his parents’ divorce “badly.”

Prince Harry has claimed that the “thousands” of articles published about him since he was young played a “destructive role” during his childhood and adolescence.

Harry said that he “certainly saw a lot of articles at the time,” and that he was “made aware” of many more that had been written about him.

However, Harry said that he could not recall specific articles that caused him distress.

“Because it’s 20 years ago, I can’t speculate,” said the Prince.

Green asked him to clarify his position.

Harry said this is accurate.

Prince Harry is being examined on his witness statement in which he identified 50 tabloid newspaper articles which he says “caused him distress.” Thirty-three of these reports are the subject of this case. 

He is being questioned in detail on whether he read the articles at the time and what the consequences were then.

Harry was asked whether he read one article mentioned in his witness statement, published in 1996 – shortly after his 12th birthday – at the time. The prince said he was not sure.

Harry was then asked whether he may have first read the article in preparation for his appearance in court for today’s civil case. The duke did not answer in any certainty.

Harry said: “I’ve experienced hostility from the press since I was born.”

Green asked whether “that hostility predated your discovery that the press were using unlawful methods?” The prince said it did.

Green then asked if “the discovery of those unlawful methods” had “exacerbated your hostility towards them?” Harry said it had.

At the beginning of its questioning of Prince Harry, MGN’s representative Andrew Green said that the newspaper group “unreservedly apologizes” for using a private investigator to inspect the duke’s private life.

“It should never have happened and will never happen again,” Green told the court.

The Duke of Sussex has started to give evidence in his case against a tabloid newspaper publisher (MGN) over alleged illegal information-gathering.

His lawyer, David Sherborne, begins by clarifying how the duke would like to be addressed. It will be “your royal highness” at first mention, and then “Prince Harry” after that.

Harry is set to be cross examined by MGN’s legal counsel, Andrew Green, who will have Monday, and Tuesday if needed, to question the duke.

The Duke of Sussex has entered court 15 of London’s High Court as proceedings are set to get underway.

Prince Harry arrives at the High Court in London, on Tuesday.

Harry’s in-person court appearance is extremely rare for a member of the British royal family. This is thought to be the first time a senior royal will personally appear since 2002, when Princess Anne pleaded guilty after her dog bit two children in a Windsor park, according to the PA Media news agency.

It is more than 130 years since a senior member of the royal family gave evidence in court, when Edward VII was a witness in a slander trial over a card game in 1891, before he became king, Reuters reported.

It’s not yet clear whether Harry’s testimony will touch on other royals or his relationships with members of the family. But his brother and heir to the throne, Prince William, has recently been brought into the fray in another of Harry’s cases.

Whether this week’s case will bring questions for other members of the royal family remains to be seen. But it marks a watershed moment in Harry’s efforts against major players in Britain’s media, and his appearance is likely to dominate headlines in the days to come.

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, on June 6.

The Duke of Sussex has arrived at London’s High Court to give evidence in his claim against Mirror Group Newspapers whose titles he accuses of phone-hacking and other unlawful activities.

Harry arrived outside the Rolls Building in central London at 9.36am in a black Range Rover, wearing a black suit.

He walked into the building without answering reporters’ questions before passing security checks inside, according to the PA Media news agency.

When Prince Harry enters the witness box later today he can expect a tough examination from the publisher’s lawyers.

The duke alleges that about 140 articles published in titles belonging to the group contained information gathered using unlawful methods, and 33 of those articles have been selected to be considered at the trial, according to PA Media news agency.

It’s likely that details of those stories will be parsed over at great length.

Harry may also detail the personal impact on him of the alleged tactics. He’s spoken in public on several occasions about how intense media interest has impacted his life.

Prince Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne (L), arrives at the Rolls Buildings in central London for the phone hacking trial against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) on Monday, June 5.

The Duke of Sussex and three other claimants representing dozens of celebrities are suing MGN, accusing its titles of obtaining private information by phone hacking and through other illicit means, including by using private investigators, between 1991 and 2011.

The trial started on May 10, and is expected to last seven weeks.

MGN is contesting most of the allegations, arguing in its court filings that some claims have been brought too late and that in all four cases there is insufficient evidence of phone hacking.

Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne has said his claim against MGN, which covers incidences from 1995 to 2011, is “significant not just in terms of time span but in the range of activity it covers.”

Harry was subject to the most “intrusive methods of obtaining personal information,” Sherborne said, arguing that “no one should be subjected to that.” The “unlawful methods” were “habitual and widespread” among the journalists, Sherborne added.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, arrives at the High Court to attend the fourth day of the preliminary hearing in a privacy case against the British tabloid media in London, England on March 30.

Prince Harry’s years-long battle against the British tabloid media will today reach its most dramatic stage yet, as the Duke of Sussex will enter the witness stand at London’s High Court.

The appearance of a British royal in a witness box will be an exceptionally rare event.

But Harry has long railed against the tactics of the tabloid media in covering his life, and he will now have the opportunity to lay out his arguments, under oath, during cross-examination from Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)’s lawyers.

This is just one of several lawsuits Harry has filed against media companies, but it’s the first so far to require Harry’s own testimony.

It’s likely to be a tense and defining appearance for the duke as he forges his own path further from the rest of the royal family.