In a stunning twist of events, Prince Harry has been left humiliated after a Royal Judge ruled that he should be compensated a mere £500 for his hacking claims against the Mirror Group newspapers.

This shocking revelation has rocked the courtroom and raised questions about the true intentions behind Harry’s legal battle.

Mirror Group newspapers boldly assert that Prince Harry is not a victim of phone hacking.

They argue that his claims were solely aimed at advancing his campaign to reform the British press.

While the publisher reluctantly admits to unlawfully obtaining Harry’s private information on one occasion at a nightclub, they have offered an apology for this isolated incident.

However, they firmly believe that this warrants no more than £500 in damages.

The rest of Harry’s case, according to them, should be dismissed entirely, placing the burden of proof on the Duke himself.

The trial has spanned over seven long weeks, with both sides accumulating millions of pounds in legal costs.

As the case nears its end, the newspaper group vehemently denies ever hacking the 38-year-old Prince.

Casey Andrew Green, the Mirror’s barrister, expressed sympathy for Harry, acknowledging the extraordinary media intrusion he has endured throughout his life.

However, Green asserts that being a victim of media intrusion does not prove that the Mirror’s titles hacked him.

He argues that Harry’s case is wildly overstated and substantially baseless, as some of the articles in question were published as far back as 30 years ago.

Furthermore, much of the supposedly private information Harry complains about has already been extensively published elsewhere or shared by palace spokespeople.

Green dismisses Harry’s complaint as a broader frustration with media intrusion as a whole, even citing testimony from other journalists turned whistleblowers who were convicted hackers themselves.

There is no suggestion that Harry was specifically targeted for voicemail interception.

On the other side, David Sherborne, representing Prince Harry and the other claimants, presents what he believes to be hard evidence of widespread unlawful activities such as hacking, lagging, and deception at Mirror Group newspapers between 1991 and 2011.

He claims that these illicit methods were the norm throughout the period, implicating the board of directors and legal department of MGM, who were allegedly aware of the widespread illegal information gathering.

Sherborne draws attention to the absence of key witnesses in the Mirror’s defense, including former editor Piers Morgan and other journalists, considering it a significant gap in their case.

He urges the judge to draw adverse inferences from this extraordinary decision.

The courtroom drama surrounding Prince Harry’s hacking claims has captured the attention of the public.

The meager compensation of £500 awarded to him has left many questioning the validity of his case and the true motives behind his campaign to reform the British press.

As the trial comes to a close, it remains to be seen how the judge will weigh the evidence presented by both sides and deliver a final verdict.