Harry admits Spare contradicts evidence at hacking trial - and tries to turn ... trends now

Prince Harry admitted his memoir Spare contradicted claims in his witness statement at the High Court today - and denied accusations his solicitors drafted evidence for him.

The Duke of Sussex, who has become the first royal to testify for more than a century at the phone hacking trial in London, also tried to turn questions on a lawyer after the High Court was told a story subject to one of his complaints came from a royal press release.

Andrew Green KC, for Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), told the royal: 'I am here to cross-examine you, I am afraid that's the way this works, Prince Harry.'

Harry has alleged that around 140 articles published between 1996 and 2010 by Mirror Group Newspapers contained inforhigmation gathered using unlawful methods. 

But Mr Green told the court that details in these stories actually came from other media outlets, including the BBC, as well as press releases, palace statements, the public domain, his aides and friends and even comments made by his mother Princess Diana.

It came as Harry was today asked about an article published in December 2003 about a possible meeting between him and his brother the Prince of Wales, and their mother's former butler Paul Burrell.

The Duke told the High Court he could not remember whether he wanted to meet his mother’s former butler Paul Burrell, despite his opposition apparently causing a rift with his brother the Prince of Wales. 

But Mr Green then told the court of a discrepancy between Harry's witness statement, in which he says he 'didn't want to hear' Mr Burrell's reasons for selling some of Diana's possessions and giving interviews about her, and his memoir Spare - where he wrote he wanted to fly home from his gap year job in the Australian outback to meet the former butler.

Harry said: 'The time gap between the original article and when I wrote this book was rather a large gap between the two.'

Mr Green said: 'Your position is that at the time you didn't want a meeting, or you did want a meeting, what is the true position?'

Harry replied: 'I honestly can't remember whether I wanted a meeting or not.'

The duke also faced questions over a Mirror article published in April 2003 regarding him leading cadets at an Eton parade.

Mr Green put it to Harry that the information complained about in this three-line story came from a St James Palace press release.

The MGN barrister said the Press Association had reported about Harry leading the tattoo on the same day as the press release and had quoted an Eton spokesman.

Mr Green also asked if there was anything objectionable in the Press Association coverage, to which the duke answered that he was not aware of the Press Association report, adding: 'I don't believe that they have admitted hacking in any shape or form.'

During cross-examination, Harry was also challenged by Mr Green over whether a part of his witness statement was drafted for him by his solicitors.

'This whole witness statement was written by me after a series of video calls with my legal team,' the duke said, explaining they took place while he was in California.

Harry added that he would spend two-and-a-half or three hours each time speaking to his lawyers.

'I'm saying that this witness statement is mine,' he told the court.

In another heated moment in court, Mr Green asked: 'Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation?' when the royal said he was 'not sure' whose phone was hacked when he broke his thumb playing football at Eton and it appeared in the Press.

Harry has also suggested that King Charles may have had his voicemails intercepted when questioned on a Mirror article titled 'Harry's cocaine, ecstasy and GHB parties', which claimed his father was 'worried sick' about his son.

The royal was then asked about whether his own drug use, an illegal act, was in the public interest when as a teenager he was then third in line to the throne. He is now fifth in line. Suggesting he believed it was not, he said: 'There's a difference between public interest - and what interests the public'. 

It came after the Duke of Sussex launched an extraordinary attack on the Government – branding it 'rock bottom' - and addressed rumours that Princess Diana's lover James Hewitt was his father as he became the first British royal to testify in open court since 1891.

Harry lambasted No 10 as part of his historic appearance in the witness box at the High Court in London this morning, and also referred to Paul Burrell as a 'two-face s***'.  

The fifth in line to the throne has become the first senior royal to give evidence in one of the Monarch's courts in 132 years, as he sues the Mirror's publisher for alleged hacking, which it denies.    

Harry, wearing a navy suit and dark purple tie, entered the witness box and swore an oath to tell the truth on the Bible this morning.

In an astonishing trashing of the convention that royals avoid meddling in politics, Harry raged about the 'state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom'.

And as the world was captivated by Harry's landmark appearance, he used his pulpit beneath the High Court coat of arms of his father the Sovereign to claim:

Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell was a 'two-faced s***' Stories about James Hewitt being his 'biological father' made him fear 'I might be ousted from the Royal Family' He worried he would be expelled from Eton for taking drugs Diana's supposed paranoia mirrored his own fears of friends betraying him Journalists hacked his girlfriend Chelsy Davy after he dressed as a fancy-dress Nazi 'Horrific personal attacks and intimidation' on him and Meghan were allegedly made by former editor Piers Morgan He is exposing media 'criminality' for moral reasons and as 'a soldier upholding important values'

The duke arrived in a black Range Rover at the Royal Courts of Justice's modern wing the Rolls Building. He stepped into the Court 15 witness box at 10.28am. 

And in his most outspoken attack on the British Press yet, Harry demanded: 'How much more blood will stain their typing fingers before someone can put a stop to this madness.' 

The 38-year-old prince proclaimed he was motivated by wanting to 'save journalism as a profession'.

During cross-examination today, Andrew Green KC, for MGN, asked Harry about part of his witness statement in which he states: 'How much more blood will stain their typing fingers before someone can put a stop to this madness.'

Mr Green asked if the duke meant 'blood on their hands' in relation to a specific article, and further asked him what he meant by it.

Harry said: 'Some of the editors and journalists that are responsible for causing a lot of pain, upset and in some cases, speaking personally, death.'

He then said his reference to 'blood on their hands' was 'more broadly towards the press' in general, adding: 'I haven't named the journalists in that particular paragraph.'

Harry was questioned on a Mirror article titled 'Harry's cocaine, ecstasy and GHB parties' - where Charles was describe as 'worried sick' but then 'hugely relieved' when told Harry had only used cannabis.

Harry said these words were attributed to his father as quotes.

But Andrew Green, representing MGN, denied this, saying it was a 'description of feelings'. Mr Green then asked if Harry believed Charles was a victim of phone hacking. 

He said: 'Potentially unlawful information gathering, yes'.

Harry was then asked about whether reports about his drug use was in the public interest.

Suggesting it was not, he said: 'There's a difference between public interest - and what interests the public'. 

There was also a heated moment in court when Mr Green said the royal had failed to answer a question about when he injured his thumb at school playing football.  

The KC asked if he thought the story came from phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.

'Both,' he replied.

Pressed on which phone would have been hacked, the prince said he 'can't be sure'.

'That's not an answer,' Mr Green said, asking him again.

'The doctors? I'm not sure,' Harry says.

Mr Green then hit back: 'Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation?'

During cross-examination, the Duke of Sussex was challenged by Mr Green over whether a part of his witness statement was drafted for him by his solicitors.

'This whole witness statement was written by me after a series of video calls with my legal team,' the duke said, explaining they took place while he was in California.

Harry added that he would spend two-and-a-half or three hours each time speaking to his lawyers.

'I'm saying that this witness statement is mine,' he added.

Mr Green KC asked Harry about a passage in his autobiography, Spare, in which he said 'a school mate must have told someone who told someone' a story about him having a haircut which was subsequently reported by the press.

Harry told the court: 'As a young man in my teenage years, I never suspected my phone was being hacked or those around me being hacked ... I could never have imagined it.'

He said some of his book was written 'with hindsight' and 'based on my memories of that time in my life, firstly as a young man, secondly as a soldier in the army and thirdly as a husband and father'.

Mr Green said the duke's reference in his memoir to a school mate 'reflects the reality that, because of who you are and were, there have always been many different routes by which information about you ... is and has been communicated to the press'.

Harry responded: 'Now, some many years later, it seems that probably wasn't the case and sadly a lot of those friends who I became paranoid with at the time, they are no longer friends.'

The Duke of Sussex told the court that royal spokespeople 'rarely ever commented on private matters', with public statements 'only preserved for major events'.

Harry made the comments amid questioning over a March 2002 article in the Daily Mirror about him contracting glandular fever entitled 'Harry's sick with kissing disease'.

Mr Green said the article, which reported the diagnosis came before the duke's annual ski trip with his father and brother, contains quotes from a palace spokeswoman about the duke taking doctors' advice.

The MGN barrister said the story was covered in other newspapers, adding there was no evidence that information from the palace 'was not put out freely'.

In his written witness statement, the duke said: 'I do not believe that the palace put this information out freely.'

In court, Mr Green said Harry was inviting the court to assume the article came from 'nefarious activity' by a journalist.

Harry said he was 'very suspicious' about information in the article, adding it was 'highly personal' and 'distressing'.

The duke was also asked by Mr Green about journalists covering royal trips, with Harry saying they were 'unable to go on holidays by ourselves without having to do a photocall', which was done 'in hope that they would leave us alone'.

Mr Green's questioning of the duke turned to a Sunday Mirror article published in January 2002 entitled 'Harry took drugs'.

The barrister said it was the News Of The World newspaper that 'broke the story' about the duke smoking cannabis. 'The untrue story, yes,' Harry said.

Mr Green said the News Of The World had contacted the duke's father's office about the story, and 'the palace' had 'cooperated' with the coverage via 'spin doctor' Mark Bolland. 

When asked whether this was the source of information in the Sunday Mirror, Harry said: 'I wasn't the one that wrote the article so you will have to asked the journalists.'

Extracts from Harry's memoir Spare were read out in court by the MGN barrister, in which the duke complained of there being a 'putrid strategy' to 'spin me right under the bus' over the News Of The World piece.

In court, the duke said the News Of The World story was a 'red rag to a bull' for newspapers, with editors asking 'why didn't you get this' and saying 'make this into an exclusive for ourselves'.

Harry said the incident was 'less about what's in the story itself' but 'the activity behind the scenes', referring to the alleged use of private investigators to secure information. The Sunday Mirror was on the back foot and therefore did everything they could,' the duke said.

Mr Green asked Harry if he accepted it was a matter of public interest someone in line to the throne was allegedly taking drugs. Harry replied that there was a difference 'between public interest and what interests the public', adding of the story: 'Every element of it was distressing'.

The Duke of Sussex faced questions about an April 2003 Mirror article about Harry leading cadets at an Eton parade.

Mr Green put it to Harry that the information complained about in this three-line story came from a St James Palace press release.

The MGN barrister said the Press Association had reported about Harry leading the tattoo on the same day as the press release and had quoted an Eton spokesman.

Mr Green asked if there was anything objectionable in the Press Association coverage.

The duke said he was not aware of the Press Association report, adding: 'I don't believe that they have admitted hacking in any shape or form.'

The court heard from Harry that he also complained about a Mirror article published on the same day about the same story.

He said he had brought a claim for damages over the articles 'based on the legal advice that I have been given'.

In his written witness statement, he said of the journalist who wrote the second cadet parade story 'that at least one of his bylined articles has previously been admitted by MGN to have been the product of unlawful information-gathering'.

Under continuing cross-examination, the Duke of Sussex rejected a suggestion that a royal aide was behind information given to the press about his gap year experience in Australia.

Harry was questioned by Mr Green about an article entitled 'Harry is ready to quit Oz' published in the Mirror in September 2003.

Mr Green said it appeared that information about Harry 'watching TV and videos' - which the duke said in his written statement was a bid to avoid camera crews - came from aide Mark Dyer.

'It doesn't appear that way,' the duke said, later adding: 'I don't accept that Mr Dyer was freely speaking to the press.'

Mr Green said to Harry that 'the information that you are alleging came from voicemail interception or unlawful information-gathering ... in fact came from your minders'.

Harry said he saw similarities in reports by other newspapers, adding that the coverage showed: 'The level of interest and fascination with my life even when I'm in the middle of the Australian outback.'

Mr Green asked the duke about an article published in December 2003 about a possible meeting between him and his brother the Prince of Wales, and their mother's former butler Paul Burrell.

Harry admitted there was a disagreement between himself and William about Mr Burrell, and said this was the sort of article

read more from dailymail.....