Prince Harry’s Lawyer Tells UK Court Daily Mail Was Complicit in Unlawful Privacy Invasions
Duke of Sussex and fellow claimants allege systematic information gathering abuses by Daily Mail publisher in high-stakes London trial
Prince Harry’s lawyer told a High Court in London on Monday that the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited, was complicit in a long-running campaign of unlawful acts that violated the privacy of the prince and other prominent figures.
The opening day of the nine-week trial saw barrister David Sherborne argue that journalists working for the Mail titles systematically employed methods including voicemail hacking, landline bugging and deception to obtain private information — practices the claimants say were sustained and deliberate and that spanned decades.
Harry, 41, arrived at court in good spirits but said in a witness submission that knowing his “every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it” was deeply disturbing.
The group of seven claimants also includes Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, anti-racism campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence and former lawmaker Simon Hughes.
They are challenging specific articles published between the early nineteen nineties and the mid-two thousands, asserting that private investigators acting on behalf of the publisher employed unlawful information gathering and that senior journalists and executives were aware of or complicit in these practices.
The alleged techniques cited by lawyers encompassed “blagging” — obtaining personal data by deception — and the use of private investigators to intercept communications and access confidential records.
Harry’s legal team asserts these intrusions inflicted significant personal distress and paranoia, and in some cases affected intimate aspects of claimants’ lives and relationships.
Associated Newspapers has denied all allegations, characterising the claims as unfounded and insisting that stories were based on legitimate sources, including social contacts and insiders, rather than illicit information gathering.
The publisher has also described the litigation as part of a broader campaign against the press by well-funded adversaries of the media.
The court will hear detailed evidence over the coming weeks, including Harry’s own testimony, which is scheduled later in the trial.
The outcome could have profound consequences for the reputation of one of Britain’s largest newspaper groups and for the future of press privacy law in the United Kingdom, with legal costs expected to run into the tens of millions of pounds.
The opening day of the nine-week trial saw barrister David Sherborne argue that journalists working for the Mail titles systematically employed methods including voicemail hacking, landline bugging and deception to obtain private information — practices the claimants say were sustained and deliberate and that spanned decades.
Harry, 41, arrived at court in good spirits but said in a witness submission that knowing his “every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it” was deeply disturbing.
The group of seven claimants also includes Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, anti-racism campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence and former lawmaker Simon Hughes.
They are challenging specific articles published between the early nineteen nineties and the mid-two thousands, asserting that private investigators acting on behalf of the publisher employed unlawful information gathering and that senior journalists and executives were aware of or complicit in these practices.
The alleged techniques cited by lawyers encompassed “blagging” — obtaining personal data by deception — and the use of private investigators to intercept communications and access confidential records.
Harry’s legal team asserts these intrusions inflicted significant personal distress and paranoia, and in some cases affected intimate aspects of claimants’ lives and relationships.
Associated Newspapers has denied all allegations, characterising the claims as unfounded and insisting that stories were based on legitimate sources, including social contacts and insiders, rather than illicit information gathering.
The publisher has also described the litigation as part of a broader campaign against the press by well-funded adversaries of the media.
The court will hear detailed evidence over the coming weeks, including Harry’s own testimony, which is scheduled later in the trial.
The outcome could have profound consequences for the reputation of one of Britain’s largest newspaper groups and for the future of press privacy law in the United Kingdom, with legal costs expected to run into the tens of millions of pounds.
