A private investigator has told the High Court he carried out numerous searches for a newspaper group under the genuine belief his activities were legal at the time. Daniel Portley-Hanks, 79, provided repeated assurances that it was not illegal for media organisations to use his services, a stance he even stated on his website, the court heard.
Assurances Given to Newspaper Executives
The US-based private detective explained he later discovered some of his work was unlawful under British law, but maintained this was not his understanding during the period he was commissioned. Mr Portley-Hanks flew from the United States specifically to give evidence on behalf of Prince Harry and six other prominent public figures in a significant privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday.
Associated Newspapers firmly denies all allegations that its journalists unlawfully commissioned investigators to access private information through methods including phone hacking, landline tapping, and the practice known as 'blagging'.
Decades of Media Work and Changing Regulations
Mr Portley-Hanks stated he had worked as a private detective for decades, with his client list including several British national newspapers. He told the court that evolving data protection laws and the consequential impact of the Leveson Inquiry into press standards led clients to request formal assurances regarding the legality of his methods.
The court was shown a pivotal email he sent to an executive at The Mail On Sunday in 2011. In it, he wrote: 'Be assured that for the entire time I did work for TMOS and the Daily Mail, all of the databases used were either public databases available to the general public, or accounts set up for news media purposes.'
Cross-Examination Reveals Complexities
Under rigorous cross-examination by Catrin Evans KC, representing Associated Newspapers, Mr Portley-Hanks conceded that certain levels of information he accessed were legally permissible for private investigators working on legal cases, but were not lawful for media organisations to obtain.
He admitted he had not always distinguished between these two categories of information. The detective said he sometimes included specific details in reports sent to media clients simply because he had been 'too lazy' to remove them. He was presented with a series of emails from journalists requesting basic contact details like phone numbers and addresses, but not the additional personal data—such as social security numbers—that he subsequently provided.
Belief in Purpose and Later Financial Hardship
Mr Portley-Hanks testified he believed the phone numbers, addresses, and other information he supplied about celebrities and public figures—including the notorious paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein—were used by journalists to facilitate contact and secure interviews. He insisted many of his searches were 'totally legal'.
During re-examination by David Sherborne, the lawyer representing the Duke of Sussex and other claimants including Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Sir Elton John, the detective stated he now believed journalists and newspaper executives were aware that some of his searches crossed legal boundaries.
The investigator revealed the cessation of work from British newspapers left him bankrupt. His personal troubles extended further; he was imprisoned in 2017 for involvement in a gambling and extortion plot. He recounted that during his incarceration, convicted phone hacker and former tabloid journalist Graham Johnson attempted to visit him.
Book Deal and Unfulfilled Promises
After his release, Mr Portley-Hanks said Mr Johnson did visit and expressed a desire to expose press misconduct. Johnson reportedly offered a £6,000 advance for a book about the detective's life, titled Hollywood Detective. The book was eventually published by Johnson's firm, Yellow Press Ltd, but sales were poor. Mr Portley-Hanks told the court he never received payment, stating bluntly: 'I haven't gotten a dime from this book.'
Graham Johnson, who is scheduled to give evidence later in the trial, is now part of a 'research team' working for the legal representatives of Prince Harry and the other claimants. The high-profile trial continues at the Royal Courts of Justice.
