UKC

Caught snippets of this on the radio on the way home.

"In his judgment, handed down on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt found that “unlawful information-gathering was widespread” at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the People from 1996 onwards, and that phone hacking started in 1996 and became widespread and habitual from 1998."

"The court heard from a number of witnesses that Morgan, who was editor of the Daily Mirror from 1995 to 2004, had known about phone hacking and illegal information-gathering."

"Fancourt ruled there could 'be no doubt' that Morgan and other senior editors and lawyers at the newspaper group had known about phone hacking and other illegal information-gathering."

And in response:

The TalkTV presenter said he had 'zero knowledge' of the single article about Prince Harry that Friday’s judgment found had involved phone hacking during his editorship.

He reiterated that he had 'never hacked a phone' while editor or told anyone else to, adding: 'Nobody has provided any actual evidence to prove that I did.'

Having zero legal background or knowledge, could Morgan take action against the judge for slander?  Or are the proclamations of a judge protected somehow?  I know there are things that can be said in the House of Parliament that are 'safe', that one would normally be prosecuted for if you said them out in the street.

Just wondered what the next step would be...I've heard Morgan threaten people with legal action when they've accused him in discussions.   

I know there are several legal bods in the parish...

No.  Morgan could not take action against the judge.  The judge is the judge - the evidence he read/heard convinced him that Morgan did know.  That is what a court is there to decide.  Whose telling the truth.  

He could appeal, which would be heard by a different judge. 

I must admit what Piers Morgan said outside the court was a good rebuttal and critical of Harry.
 

No, but he was aware of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/11/what-piers-morgan-knew-about-...

By all accounts his (and other) newspapers used dodgy sources.

An analysis by ITV News published for the first time on Wednesday details 1,728 potentially illegal transactions between the Daily Mail and Whittamore – almost double the number reported in 2006. The Daily Mirror made 984 requests for potentially illegal data, including 19 criminal record checks, according to the analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/28/steve-whittamore-network-priv...

Its been dragging on for over a decade. You can see by the date of the story above, when it was considered old news.

Cameron started the Levinson enquiry, to get to the bottom of this. Ironically, his director of comms, Andy Coulson, was convicted and jailed for phone hacking. 

I'm not a fan of the royals. However, I dont see that Piers has any moral high ground. Him and his mates in the press hounded Harry's mum, to the point she got into a car with a drunk driver to get away from them.

Piers Morgan wouldn't know truth if it slapped him in his smug over-fed face.

There are two possibilities.

Either he was utterly incompetent as an editor not questioning a)where these stories were coming from and b)where the payments were going to or he is lying about not knowing about phone hacking.

Its interesting how his response answers a different and very narrowly defined "accusation". He might not have been involved in that single article and might not have instructed people to hack phones directly but its rather difficult to believe he didnt know it was in use.

Numerous other editors have said it’s inconceivable that he didn’t know. Pretty much the first question from the editor on a juicy and potentially libellous story would be: where did you get the information and can you rely on it. He knew, he condoned it and he lied under oath at the Leveson enquiry. 

My thoughts exactly.

Bit like watching Jacob RM in a fist fight with Nigel F. The outcome is not of great interest,  you just hope it hurts both of them. 

Unless a legal expert can tell me otherwise, I believe that this is untrue.  A number of witnesses testified to his knowledge of what was going on, and witness testimony is evidence.

But didn't his wording carefully not deny that he knew hacking was going on; he just denied doing it himself or telling anyone else to do it?

I think Harry should get some credit for this. Unlike others without the resources, rather than accepting a pay off he has used his wealth and position to take these people to court. It was a big risk for him.

It doesn't feel that way to me at all. I have no particular love or loyalty for Harry, but I find it hard to summon up much hatred for him either and I certainly don't feel like he actively injects toxicity into the world like Piers (or the two characters you've also named here). At worst, you could perhaps accuse him of being a little whiney and self-absorbed at times, but I think it would be borderline miraculous for someone to grow up under the pressures he did and come out thoroughly well-balanced.

For decades I've hoped that unscrupulous editors, proprietors and journalists will be brought to some form of justice and ultimately stopped from what they do. The damage and insult to peoples lives caused by The Sun, Mirror etc over the years is horrendous.

I don't disagree.  However there are more important fights going on right now for this to be the lead story. Fair to say that I used to admire Harry as one of the more real and honest (?) Royals. Too many things done and said now to feel the same, even allowing for the shocker of an upbringing he had to live through at times. 

As for a principled fight against the papers, no, that's not the driver here I don't think and as for it being necessary to control the press, well they have nothing like the power they once had. Far more dubious malevolent and downright dangerous forces are deciding what "freedom" actually means now. JRM and NF as per my original post being good bad examples.

Sadly, I think he has reacted badly to the continued 'shocker' he has had to live through, which can be mostly put at the feet of the likes of Morgan, stirring up shit, in the name of selling their tawdry rags.

I'm pretty ambivalent towards the royals. But I'm far less ambivalent to the malign influence of most of our 'newspapers'.

Yes its a suspiciously precise denial. A bit like me after being accused of speeding announcing I have never exceeded the speed limit on the B9176.

Its not even suspicious is it? Pretty clear he knew what was going on and enjoyed the headline benefits as an editor.

This is interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/18/piers-morgan-phone-ha...

page 23 point 93 of the judge's statement seems pretty damning

page 78 point 335

MGN decided not to call Piers Morgan as a witness. He could have denied this under oath. Apparently he has so little sway with MGN that he was not able to convince them to allow him to take the stand.

The ruling is very specific about people, places and times. PM could say in public that these individuals were lying - but then he might have to defend himself in court, under oath.

Plenty of opportunity - not a lot of action.

He reiterated that he had 'never hacked a phone' while editor or told anyone else to, adding: 'Nobody has provided any actual evidence to prove that I did.'

"Unless a legal expert can tell me otherwise, I believe that this is untrue.  A number of witnesses testified to his knowledge of what was going on, and witness testimony is evidence."

But thats  (Never hacked a phone or told anyone else too)  is  different to knowing what went on..

Funnily enough, I've never hacked a phone or told anyone else to, but for many years, even before all the current publicity I knew that it was going on. So I cannot imagine that he didn't know.

Interestingly, he never actually says that he didn't know it was going on, it's just a question he never answers.

There's also the somewhat semantic point that he most probably didn't "tell someone to hack a phone", but that doesn't mean he didn't "tell someone to get someone else to hack a phone".

I don't imagine any phone hackers actually entered the editors office, and maybe not even the building, but that most certainly doesn't equate to them not being employed and known about.

As the guardian article posted by deepsoup shows he has acknowledged it in the past. Its just in more recent years he has come up with the extremely narrow denial of specific charges.

Quite and, what's more, an extremely narrow denial of specific charges that he has chosen for their deniability even though nobody else has made them.