In a dramatic courtroom confrontation, lawyers representing Associated Newspapers have forcefully rejected Prince Harry's legal claim that Mail journalists paid private investigators to hack celebrities' phones, comparing the allegations to 'clutching at straws in the wind'. The publishers of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday have categorically denied all accusations of unlawful information gathering, describing them as 'preposterous' and 'simply untrue'.
High-Profile Claimants Face Robust Defence
The legal action, brought by the Duke of Sussex alongside six other prominent figures, alleges systematic targeting by the newspaper group. The claimants include Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes, and actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost. Together, they assert they were subjected to invasive surveillance and information gathering through illicit means.
Legitimate Sourcing Claims Counter Allegations
Antony White KC, representing Associated Newspapers, presented a compelling counter-narrative to the High Court. He asserted that journalists would provide evidence demonstrating their use of legitimate sources for information gathering. In one particularly striking example, Mr White revealed that a 1997 front page article about the government announcing a public inquiry into Stephen Lawrence's murder was personally provided to the Daily Mail's editor by then-Home Secretary Jack Straw.
Further challenging the claimants' position, Mr White indicated that other reports central to the legal action had originated from Sir Elton John's own publicist and Prince Harry's press secretary. The barrister suggested that some claimants had 'leaky' friends within their social circles who willingly spoke to journalists, including individuals from Harry's own acquaintances.
Burden of Proof and Document Scrutiny
Mr White emphasised that the burden of proof rests squarely with the claimants to substantiate their allegations. He argued that documents showing payments from newspapers to private investigators do not automatically prove journalists commissioned unlawful information gathering. The barrister characterised the claimants' reliance on such documentation as 'examples of clutching at straws in the wind and seeking to bind them together in a way that has no proper analytical foundation'.
In written legal arguments submitted to the court, Mr White stated: 'The claimants' inferential case of phone hacking and phone tapping is met and convincingly rebutted. The pattern of misconduct the claimants seek to establish is simply not made out.'
Journalists Prepare to Testify
The defence revealed that dozens of journalists are prepared to give evidence denying the allegations brought by Prince Harry and fellow claimants. Mr White explained: 'From the top down, Associated's editors, desk heads and journalists, many of whom have worked at the company for many years and even decades, are lining up to reject the claimants' allegations of habitual and widespread phone hacking, phone tapping and blagging within the organisation.'
The barrister acknowledged that third party investigators were used to obtain information prior to April 2007 when their use was largely banned, following evidence given to the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 by then-Mail editor Paul Dacre. However, Mr White maintained that a major internal investigation had found no evidence of phone hacking at Associated Newspapers.
Questionable Evidence and Forged Documents
In a significant development, Mr White revealed that the 'only direct evidence' of phone hacking and landline tapping had come from private investigator Gavin Burrows, who has since disavowed a witness statement presented by the claimants' legal team. According to the defence, Mr Burrows claims the statement was not written by him and that the signature on the document constitutes a forgery.
Prince Harry's Personal Stance
Prince Harry, who is expected to be the first witness called to give evidence, attended court yesterday to hear his barrister David Sherborne outline the claimants' case. Mr Sherborne told the court that the Duke of Sussex felt he had 'endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him for having had the temerity to stand up to Associated'.
The barrister emphasised that the claimants' motivation extends beyond financial compensation, stating: 'It is not the claim for damages that brings these claimants here. It is the uncovering of the truth of what was done to them, and Associated taking accountability for that.' Should the claimants succeed, they would seek 'significant' damages, with legal costs already estimated at £38.8 million.
The high-stakes legal battle continues, with Prince Harry potentially stepping into the witness box as early as today. The case represents one of the most significant media law confrontations in recent years, pitting royal and celebrity claimants against one of Britain's most prominent newspaper publishers in a fundamental dispute about journalistic practices and privacy rights.
