The High Court in London has heard that Prince Harry's legal team possesses what they describe as 'compelling evidence' of unlawful information gathering by newspapers. The Duke of Sussex alleges he was a victim of journalists from the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, who he claims commissioned private detectives to hack phones and 'blag' confidential information.
A High-Profile Legal Battle Commences
The Duke flew from his home in California to attend the start of the nine-week trial at the Royal Courts of Justice. He is scheduled to give evidence in person on Thursday. Prince Harry is not alone in his allegations; he is one of seven prominent claimants who assert their private information was systematically misused.
The other claimants include music icon Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actress Elizabeth Hurley, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence. They are joined by former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes and actress Sadie Frost. On the first day, Harry sat in court flanked by Sir Simon and Miss Frost, while Sir Elton and Mr Furnish observed proceedings via a live video link.
Allegations of a 'Systematic and Sustained' Campaign
Opening the case for the claimants, barrister David Sherborne told the court there was a 'clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering' at the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday. He asserted that journalists and executives were complicit in a culture that 'wrecked the lives of so many'.
Mr Sherborne outlined that Associated Newspapers, the publisher of both titles, spent millions on private investigators between 1991 and 2011 to allegedly obtain information unlawfully. He detailed the profound impact on each claimant, stating Prince Harry found intrusive reports about his personal life 'disturbing' and that they damaged his relationships.
The court heard that Baroness Lawrence felt the alleged journalistic misconduct represented 'a new trauma and injustice'. For Sadie Frost, the claim includes allegations that a Mail on Sunday journalist obtained deeply personal medical details, including information about an ectopic pregnancy that necessitated an abortion. A draft article was written but never published.
Defence Denials and a Key Witness Dispute
Associated Newspapers has robustly denied all allegations, labelling them as 'untrue' and ‘preposterous’. The publisher maintains its journalists relied on legitimate sources and has specifically denied commissioning phone hacking, eavesdropping on live calls, or blagging medical and financial records.
A significant point of contention revolves around private investigator Gavin Burrows. Several claimants were prompted to launch legal action after his ‘confessions’ to carrying out illegal activities for the newspapers. However, Burrows has since denied ever working for Associated Newspapers and claims a witness statement presented by the claimants' team is a forgery, with a signature that is not his.
An earlier allegation by the claimants regarding 'the commissioning of burglaries or the breaking and entering of private property' was struck out by the court at a preliminary hearing last year.
In his written arguments, Mr Sherborne stated that each claimant is entitled to a 'very substantial award of damages' for the wrongs committed against them. The trial, which is expected to last nine or ten weeks, continues with Prince Harry set to be the first witness to give evidence all day on Thursday.
