**
In a groundbreaking court case against Associated Newspapers Ltd, a retired private investigator has testified regarding alleged illegal activities carried out for the publisher of the Daily Mail. Daniel Portley-Hanks, who claims to have earned around $1 million for his work, provided compelling evidence linking the publisher to unlawful information-gathering practices involving high-profile figures, including Prince Harry and Elton John.
Testimony Reveals Financial Gains and Ethical Concerns
Portley-Hanks, 79, known as “Detective Danno,” stated that he purchased a substantial property in California and amassed savings of $150,000, largely derived from his services to Associated Newspapers. Speaking in the High Court, he recounted his experiences working for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday from the early 1990s until about 2013, when his services were abruptly halted following the Leveson Inquiry, which scrutinised press conduct in the UK.
“I was the database guy,” he explained, detailing how he could uncover personal details with just a name or phone number. However, he expressed a change in perspective regarding the legality of his actions: “At the time, I didn’t believe anything I was doing was illegal, but now I realise I engaged in activities that were unlawful, particularly in terms of personal data collection.”
Legal Challenges and Denials from Associated Newspapers
Portley-Hanks’s claims have been met with resistance from Associated Newspapers, which has vehemently denied any wrongdoing. The publisher’s legal team pointed to previous statements from Portley-Hanks asserting that he had not violated any laws. They have characterised the allegations as “lurid” and “preposterous,” insisting that all journalistic activities were conducted lawfully.
In a striking revelation, Portley-Hanks alleged that Associated Newspapers sought to obscure its reliance on private investigators by instructing him to alter his email identity to that of a Hollywood reporter. He also claimed involvement in a transaction related to a serving police officer who allegedly provided documents concerning Jeffrey Epstein, a statement that Associated Newspapers has categorically denied.
High-Profile Claimants and Their Allegations
The case features prominent claimants, including Prince Harry, Elton John, and actress Elizabeth Hurley, all of whom accuse Associated Newspapers of employing unlawful information-gathering techniques over many years. Portley-Hanks noted that while he believed he had conducted work for these individuals, he struggled to recall specific instances. “I know that I did unlawful stuff on him,” he remarked about Prince Harry, though he could not elaborate on the details.
The claimants have expressed deep concerns, with some, like Sadie Frost, alleging intimidation and harassment stemming from the newspaper’s practices. Frost testified in court that there had been a “price put on my head” by the publisher, highlighting the serious implications of the allegations.
Ongoing Uncertainties and Legal Proceedings
The trial is marked by uncertainties, particularly regarding the participation of Gavin Burrows, another private investigator whose credibility has been called into question. Burrows has indicated he may only testify from a secret location due to concerns about his safety, a situation described by the claimants’ lawyer as “highly unorthodox.”
As the case continues, the legal ramifications for Associated Newspapers could be profound, potentially reshaping public perception of journalistic ethics and accountability in the UK.
Why it Matters
This high-profile case sheds light on the murky practices that can underpin media operations, particularly regarding privacy and ethical journalism. With influential figures at its centre, the proceedings not only challenge the integrity of one of the UK’s largest newspaper publishers but also raise critical questions about the broader implications for media practices and the protection of individual privacy rights. As revelations unfold, public trust in the media could face significant repercussions, underscoring the need for transparency and accountability in journalism.
