Listen to the article
Prince Harry’s legal battle against the Daily Mail entered its third and final phase Monday as his lawyer alleged the newspaper and its Sunday edition conducted “systematic and sustained unlawful information gathering” spanning two decades.
Attorney David Sherborne told the London High Court that the Mail newspapers cultivated a longstanding practice of hiring private investigators skilled in “dark arts” to spy on celebrities, causing significant distress to the Duke of Sussex.
“It was disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it,” Harry said in a statement read by his lawyer. The intrusions reportedly left the prince “paranoid beyond belief” and created “massive strain” on his personal relationships.
The high-stakes privacy case, which could result in tens of millions of dollars in damages, unites Harry with several prominent figures including Sir Elton John, actress Elizabeth Hurley, and model Sadie Frost. They collectively allege Associated Newspapers Ltd. employed investigators to bug their vehicles, access personal records, and eavesdrop on phone conversations.
The publisher has categorically denied these claims, dismissing them as “preposterous” and maintaining that their reporting relied on legitimate sources, including what they described as “leaky” associates willing to divulge information about celebrities.
The trial, expected to last nine weeks, will see Prince Harry return to the witness box on Thursday. This marks his second court testimony in recent years, following his historic appearance in 2023 when he became the first senior royal to testify in over a century.
Harry arrived at court Monday in a dark blue suit, cheerfully acknowledging reporters as he entered the building through a side entrance. He sat in the courtroom’s back row near Hurley and Frost, while Elton John observed proceedings online.
This case represents the culmination of Harry’s legal campaign against major British tabloids. In 2023, he secured a significant victory when the Daily Mirror was found guilty of “widespread and habitual” phone hacking. Last year, Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers issued an unprecedented apology for years of privacy violations and agreed to substantial damages.
Harry’s legal crusade aligns with his self-declared mission to reform the media industry, which he holds responsible for his mother Princess Diana’s death in 1997. The prince has also cited relentless press attacks against his wife Meghan as a primary factor in their decision to step back from royal duties and relocate to the United States in 2020.
Defense lawyer Antony White countered that the lawsuits rely on weak inferences attempting to link published articles with payments to investigators. He stated that numerous witnesses, including editors and reporters with decades of experience at the newspapers, were prepared to dispute the allegations and explain their legitimate sources.
“This is in reality little more than guesswork — it involves jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, or worse, artificially selecting and presenting evidence to fit the preconceived agenda,” White argued in his opening statement.
Associated Newspapers also contends that many claims, some dating back to 1993, were filed too late when the lawsuits were initiated in 2022. While Judge Matthew Nicklin previously declined to dismiss the cases on these grounds, he will reconsider this defense after hearing evidence.
Sherborne pushed back, suggesting the newspaper company’s “destruction of records” and “masses upon masses of missing documents” had deliberately obstructed the claimants from discovering the full extent of the alleged misconduct. “They swore that they were a clean ship,” he said. “Associated knew that these emphatic denials were not true… They knew they had skeletons in their closet.”
A significant complication in the case involves private investigator Gavin Burrows, who initially came forward in 2021 to assist those he had allegedly targeted. Burrows claimed he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail between 2000 and 2005, but has since disavowed his sworn statement and now denies ever working for the publication.
While the defense argues this undermines the claimants’ case substantially, Sherborne minimized Burrows’ importance, noting: “Mr. Burrows is just one of a large number of private investigators Associated used… He was just the original whistleblower.”
Other claimants in the case include anti-racism activist Baroness Doreen Lawrence and former politician Simon Hughes, all seeking accountability for alleged privacy violations that have profoundly impacted their lives and relationships.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
It’s concerning to hear about the alleged unlawful tactics used by the Daily Mail to gather information on public figures. Privacy violations can have a serious psychological toll, as Prince Harry’s experience demonstrates. I hope this legal battle brings more transparency and accountability to the tabloid industry.
As someone interested in commodities and energy news, I’m curious to see if this case has any wider implications for the media industry’s information gathering practices, especially around sensitive business or financial matters. Responsible journalism is important, but so is respecting individual privacy.
As someone who follows the mining and energy sectors closely, I’ll be curious to see if this case has any ripple effects on how the media gathers information, especially around sensitive business or financial topics. Responsible journalism is a must, but so is respect for individual privacy.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. On one hand, the public has a right to know about public figures. On the other, unethical tactics to obtain information can cause real harm. I hope this case leads to clearer guidelines around investigative journalism methods.
While the media should be able to report on public figures, the alleged tactics here seem to cross ethical boundaries. Celebrities deserve a reasonable level of privacy, especially when it comes to their personal lives and relationships. I’ll be following this case with interest.
While I’m primarily focused on mining, commodities and energy news, I do find this case interesting from a media ethics perspective. The alleged practices, if true, seem to cross ethical boundaries and undermine public trust in the press.