Daily Mail Royal Editor Testifies on Source of Harry's Botswana Campfire Story
In a significant development at the High Court, the royal editor of the Daily Mail has provided detailed testimony regarding the origins of a story about Prince Harry's courtship with Chelsy Davy. Rebecca English, who has been with the publication since 1999 and assumed the role of royal editor in 2020, appeared as a witness in the ongoing trial concerning allegations of unlawful information gathering.
The Controversial 2004 Article
The case centers on claims brought by a group of high-profile individuals, including the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and Sir Elton John, against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday. ANL has consistently and strongly denied all allegations, vigorously defending its position in court.
One of the key pieces of evidence under scrutiny is an article published in December 2004, headlined "How Harry fell in love." This story, among fourteen others at the heart of Harry's claim, reported that the duke had shared intimate details about his relationship with Chelsy Davy during a campfire gathering in Botswana.
Conflicting Accounts of the Source
During Monday's proceedings, barrister David Sherborne, representing the claimants, questioned Ms. English extensively about the article's sourcing. In her witness statement, Ms. English explained that the campfire anecdote was provided to her by colleague Sam Greenhill. She elaborated that Greenhill had informed her that one of the individuals present with Prince Harry during the campfire conversation had contacted the newspaper after news of the relationship became public.
"Sam told me that one of the people that Prince Harry had spoken with round the campfire got in touch with the newspaper when news of the relationship broke and gave this information to us," Ms. English stated. "Prince Harry hadn't told them who his girlfriend was but had described her so that, when the stories about Chelsy Davy broke, they realised the significance of what they had been told."
Ms. English initially believed the tip came from a contact of Greenhill's but later understood it had simply been submitted to the news desk. She suggested Greenhill passed it along to assist her as she was new to her role as a royal reporter at the time.
Prince Harry's Contradictory Testimony
This account directly contradicts evidence given by Prince Harry last month. The duke asserted that those with him at the campfire, whom he described as some of his closest friends, would never have shared such information with journalists. He argued that if they had, there would be far more stories circulating about his private life.
When barrister Antony White KC, representing ANL, suggested that Mail journalists could only have obtained the information if someone present had disclosed it, Harry countered that it was more likely intercepted from a voicemail or other communication. "These three people have never shared anything with anybody. If they had, there would be a lot more out there," he told the court.
Questioning the Anonymous Source
During cross-examination, Mr. Sherborne pressed Ms. English on the reliability of the anonymous source. He highlighted that neither she nor Mr. Greenhill knew the identity of the caller, questioning how she could comfortably quote extensively from such a mystery informant.
"How did you feel comfortable quoting widely from this mystery source... if neither you nor Mr. Greenhill knew who they were?" Mr. Sherborne asked. Ms. English responded, "I trust my colleagues and trust their judgment." She further explained that Greenhill had spoken directly to the source and believed their account to be truthful, which satisfied her journalistic standards.
When asked why Greenhill would not take credit for the story himself, Ms. English praised his collegial nature, stating, "No, because that is not how colleagues at the Daily Mail work. He is an incredibly kind and helpful colleague."
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
The trial, presided over by Mr. Justice Nicklin, is scheduled to conclude in March, with a written judgment expected to follow at a later date. This case represents a critical moment in the long-standing dispute between prominent public figures and major media outlets over privacy and journalistic practices.
As the proceedings continue, the conflicting testimonies about the Botswana campfire story underscore the complex challenges in verifying sources and protecting personal privacy within the high-stakes world of royal reporting.
