As Prince Harry enters the courtroom once more, tens of millions of dollars are at stake in his ongoing legal battle aimed at curbing the excesses of British tabloids.
Known formally as the Duke of Sussex, Harry is at the forefront of a lawsuit involving several high-profile figures. They are suing the publisher of the Daily Mail, alleging that the company invaded their privacy through illicit information-gathering methods, all for the sake of sensational journalism.
Among the seven prominent plaintiffs are Harry, music icon Elton John, and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost. They claim that Associated Newspapers Ltd engaged private detectives to bug their vehicles, access personal records, and eavesdrop on phone conversations without their consent.
In response, the publisher has categorically denied these accusations, labeling them as absurd.
Attorney David Sherborne began his arguments late Monday AEDT, asserting that a long-standing culture at Associated Newspapers involved unlawfully digging up damaging information, which, he claimed, “ruined the lives of many.”
Sherborne further argued that the company’s firm denials, along with the destruction of records and the absence of numerous documents, have obstructed the plaintiffs’ efforts to uncover the full extent of the newspapers’ actions.
“They swore that they were a clean ship,” Sherborne said.
“Associated knew that these emphatic denials were not true. ⦠They knew they had skeletons in their closet.”
The trial in London’s High Court is expected to last nine weeks and will see the return of Harry to the witness box for the second time since he made history in 2023 by becoming the first senior member of the royal family to testify in more than a century.
Harry waved cheerfully at reporters and said “good morning” as he entered the court building via a side entrance. He took a seat in the back row of the courtroom near Hurley and Frost.
The prince v the publishers
The case was one of many that has emerged from the widespread phone hacking scandal in which some journalists began intercepting voicemail messages around the turn of this century and continued for more than a decade.
Harry won a court judgment in 2023 that condemned the publishers of the Daily Mirror for “widespread and habitual” phone hacking. Last year, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship UK tabloid made an unprecedented apology for intruding on his life for years, and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle his privacy invasion lawsuit.
Harry’s self-proclaimed mission to reform the media is more personal and goes far beyond headlines that attempted to document his party boy youth and romance ups and downs.
He holds the press responsible for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris. He also blames them for persistent attacks on his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, that led them to leave royal life and move to the United States in 2020.
Repairing rift in the royal family
The trial comes as Harry tries to repair a damaged relationship with his family since he moved to America and burned the bridge behind him by penning a scorching 2023 memoir, Spare, and airing other family grievances in a Netflix series.
Frosty relations with his father, King Charles III, appear to be thawing a bit after the two met for tea last fall when Harry was last in town.
But a reunion this time looks unlikely.
The start of the trial coincides with Charles’ trip to Scotland and Harry’s visit is expected to be limited to the opening of the trial and his early testimony.
Wins and losses before trial
The case against the Mail was filed in 2022 and has been the subject of several contentious hearings that have led to rulings that each side has claimed as victories.
Lawyers for Associated Newspapers had argued that the case should be thrown out because claims dating as far back as 1993 were brought too late. But in a ruling saying the cases have a “real prospect of succeeding”, Judge Matthew Nicklin said the papers had “not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’” to the claims.
In the same ruling, Nicklin handed a win to the Mail in saying Harry and the others could not use records that allegedly showed payments by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday to private investigators because they had been disclosed in confidence to a government inquiry into phone hacking.
But Harry’s lawyers later got permission from UK government officials to use the documents.
Private eye with conflicting claims
A private investigator whose name is on a sworn statement supporting the claims of Harry and the celebrities has filed another statement denying he ever snooped on them.
During an early hearing in the case, Sherborne said his clients were not aware they were phone hacking victims until Gavin Burrows and other investigators came forward in 2021 to “do the right thing” and help those he targeted.
Burrows said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail between 2000 and 2005, and that Harry, John and his husband, David Furnish, and Hurley and Frost were “just a small handful of my targets”.
But he has since signed another statement saying he had not been hired by Associated Newspapers to do any unlawful work.
It’s unclear what impact his conflicting statements will have on the case.
The other claimants are anti-racism activist Doreen Lawrence and former politician Simon Hughes.
