AG百家乐在线官网

That's all our live coverage for today - thank you for following along. 

In a landmark ruling, judge Mr Justice Fancourt has ruled that "extensive" phone hacking and unlawful information gathering took place at Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) from the mid-1990s until 2011.

Evidence of both illegal techniques were found in Prince Harry's case, as well as Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell's.

To read all the latest updates as they happened, scroll back through this blog. 

Or, if you'd like to recap the key findings from the court's ruling, you can read this piece below...

For a bit more on Piers Morgan's explosive response to allegations made against him, read here...

And if you want to read some analysis from our royal correspondent, you can do so here...

We're joined now by media lawyer, Persephone Bridgman Baker, who is asked about what happens next.

"This will very likely have a knock on effect on other claims in this area," she says.

"We certainly haven't seen the end of phone hacking [in the courts]," she adds.

She's then asked if Piers Morgan could face criminal charges after a High Court judge found it was "convincing" Mr Morgan knew about phone hacking when he was in charge of the Daily Mirror.

"The evidential burden is very different," she says.

"The claimant only has to prove their case on the balance of probabilities in a civil claim such as this, so to say that criminal proceedings may follow in relation to [any alleged] illegal activity is certainly not a given at this stage."

The police have said there is "no ongoing investigation".

Prince Harry has claimed victory in a landmark court case against one of Britain鈥檚 biggest news publishers 鈥� the Mirror Group 鈥� with a High Court judge finding the company鈥檚 practice of phone hacking was "extensive" as well as its use of private investigators to illegally gather information to write stories for its newspapers.

Mr Justice Fancourt ruled that 15 out of a selection of 33 stories written about Harry by the paper were obtained through illegal breaches of privacy, and that senior executives at the company "turned a blind eye".

On the Sky News Daily, Sam Washington talks to Sky's royal correspondent Laura Bundock and media management lawyer Jonathan Coad about what this ruling means for the prince 鈥� as well as the media industry.  

Let's bring you some reaction from Rishi Sunak on today's ruling. 

Speaking from a community centre in North Yorkshire, the prime minister said he believed a free press has to follow certain rules. 

"I believe obviously in a free and fair press but everyone needs to operate within the law," he said. 

"That's what anyone would expect and that's what this country has always been proud to stand by," he added. 

Our royal correspondent Laura Bundock has been across today's events as they unfolded.

In this clip - which you can watch in under a minute - she explains what the ruling means and why. 

Watch her report below...

A former journalist has said today was a difficult day for the newspaper industry, as the High Court ruled against Mirror Group Newspapers. 

Former royal correspondent at the BBC Jennie Bond was asked first about what this story means for Prince Harry and his public image. 

"Harry's come in for an awful lot of bad press," she said.

"And yes, his popularity has plummeted over here... but people will remember the young Harry - the young boy who lost his mother so suddenly and then, in those terribly difficult adolescent years, had to put up with everything he did being scrutinised publicly but also privately," she said. 

She then turned to what the case means for him going forward.

"I think this will fire him up to pursue his other court cases ... he's got one against the [Daily] Mail going on, against The Sun," she added.

She explained that this renewed vigour could bring even more bad news for the papers. 

"This is certainly a very, very difficult day for the newspaper industry," she said, with more claimants likely to pursue cases in light of Prince Harry's victory today. 

We've just heard from Nigel Pauley - a media commentator and former journalist, who discussed what today's ruling means for Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

"This is a huge crisis for the group," he said. 

"They were covering this up [at board and editorial level] and at legal level... that to me is a big crisis for the paper and its shareholders," he said.

He said they have paid millions in legal fees and having now lost a case, are vulnerable to more financial blows.

"They're now open to lots more claims and also other things could happen, other investigations could happen that could be very serious," he said. 

"The fact that all these people left years ago and there's a different culture in that newspaper now, sadly is irrelevant. The fact is, is that [the group is] being dragged down by what happened all those years ago". 

In case you missed it, here's Piers Morgan's statement in full. 

Earlier this morning, a High Court judge found it was "convincing" Mr Morgan knew about phone hacking when he was in charge of the Daily Mirror.

You can watch his comments in full here, or read them below...

"Today a judge in the High Court in London has ruled on various cases including Prince Harry's claim against Mirror Group Newspapers, where I was an editor until 2004.

"The judgment finds there is just one article relating to the prince published in The Daily Mirror during my entire nine-year tenure as editor that he thinks may have involved some unlawful information gathering.

"To be clear I had then, and still have, zero knowledge of how that particular story was gathered.

"All his other claims against the Daily Mirror under my leadership were rejected.

"With regard to the judge's other references to me in his judgment, I also want to reiterate, as I've consistently said for many years now, I've never hacked a phone or told anybody else to hack a phone.

"And nobody has produced any actual evidence to prove that I did.

"I wasn't called as a witness - this is important for people to know this - by either side in the case, nor was I asked to provide any statement.

"I would have very happily agreed to do either or both of those things had I been asked. Nor did I have a single conversation with any of the Mirror Group lawyers throughout the entire legal process.

"So I wasn't able to respond to the many false allegations that were spewed about me in court by old foes of mine with an axe to grind, most of which, inexplicably, were not even challenged in my absence by the Mirror Group counsel.

"But I note the judge appears to have believed the evidence of Omid Scobie, who lied about me in his new book, and he lied about me in court, and the whole world now knows him to be a deluded fantasist.

"And he believed the evidence of Alastair Campbell, another proven liar who spun this country into an illegal war.

"Finally, I want to say this: Prince Harry's outrage at media intrusion into the private lives of the Royal Family is only matched by his own ruthless, greedy, and hypocritical enthusiasm for doing it himself.

"He talked today about the appalling behaviour of the press but this is a guy who's repeatedly trashed his family in public for hundreds of millions of dollars, even as two of its most senior and respected members were dying - his grandparents.

"It's hard to imagine, frankly, more appalling behaviour than that.

"As for him saying this is a good day for truth, the duke has been repeatedly exposed in recent years as someone who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him around his California-tanned face.

"He demands accountability for the press but refuses to accept any for himself for smearing the Royal Family, his own family, as a bunch of callous racists without producing a shred of proof to support those disgraceful claims.

"He also says he's on a mission to reform the media, when it's become clear his real mission, along with his wife, is to destroy the British monarchy.

"And I will continue to do whatever I can to stop them.

"Merry Christmas."

We're joined now by Antonia Foster, a partner at Carter-Ruck - a law firm that specialises in litigation, arbitration and dispute resolution. 

She's reacting to that Piers Morgan statement, suggesting that further investigation could be sanctioned off the back of today's ruling - which found an article about Prince Harry in the Daily Mirror, written while Mr Morgan was editor, was likely the product of phone hacking. 

"Piers Morgan is saying he has no knowledge of the one particular [article] that the court has ruled on... but it's an open question whether further proceedings will reveal something rather different," she says. 

She's asked next if the ruling shows it requires someone with the financial muscle of a royal to take on the media.

"Most people simply don't have the means or the position that Prince Harry has had to fight this sort of case," she says.

"Along the way he's been roundly criticised for it at times and I suspect that this decision will have come as a a surprise to a great, great many people, including other media groups," she adds. 

A bit more from Piers Morgan's statement a short time ago.

The broadcaster claimed he was never given the opportunity to refute the "false allegations" made against him throughout the trial.

Earlier this morning, a High Court judge found it was "convincing" Mr Morgan knew about phone hacking when he was in charge of the Daily Mirror.

"I wasn't called as a witness... by either side in the case," Mr Morgan said in response. 

"Nor was I asked to provide any statement."

"I would have very happily agreed to do either or both of those things, had I been asked," he added.

He said he did not have a single conversation with any legal counsel from any side throughout the process. 

"I wasn't able to respond to the many false allegations that were spewed about me in court by all foes of mine with an axe to grind - most of which, inexplicably, were not even challenged in my absence by the Mirror Group [legal] counsel."