In a high-profile case that has captivated the nation, Prince Harry and a group of other prominent figures have accused the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday of “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” to secure stories about them.
The Duke of Sussex, who was present in court for the start of the trial, accused the newspaper group of subjecting him to “intrusion [that] was terrifying” for his loved ones, creating a “massive strain” on his personal relationships and driving him “paranoid beyond belief, isolating” him.
Joining Prince Harry in the legal action are a host of other high-profile individuals, including Doreen Lawrence, the campaigning mother of Stephen Lawrence, who was killed in a racist murder over 30 years ago. Sir Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, the actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, as well as the former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, are also part of the group bringing the case against the newspaper publisher.
In their written submissions to the court, the claimants’ legal team alleged that the unlawful acts included using private investigators to illegally intercept voicemail messages, listen in on live landline calls, and obtain private information such as itemised phone bills or medical records by deception, known as “blagging”.
Opening the trial at the High Court, the claimants’ barrister, David Sherborne, said the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday had “skeletons in their closet” over the use of unlawful information gathering. He stated that the alleged acts involved “journalists from both the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and every significant editorial desk” over two decades.
Sherborne asserted that he would demonstrate a “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering at both the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday”, adding that “there is evidence, indisputable evidence, in the documents that Associated journalists and senior executives were commissioning and approving the acquisition and use of unlawfully obtained information, and they must have known that.”
However, Associated Newspapers has denied any wrongdoing, previously describing the claims as “lurid” and “preposterous”. The company’s lawyers have argued that the allegations of widespread unlawful practices at its titles “was simply untrue” and that the legal action against the titles had come as a result of a “coordinated strategy” in which prominent claimants were “recruited and corralled”.
The trial, which is expected to last up to 10 weeks, promises to be an expensive and high-stakes affair, with costs potentially reaching as much as £38 million. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already shone a spotlight on the alleged practices of the newspaper industry and the ongoing battle between the media and public figures over privacy and press freedom.