Prince Harry’s privacy case is ‘threadbare’ and journalist sources were legitimate, lawyer for Mail publisher tells High Court | UK News

Prince Harry’s privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail is “threadbare” and has been brought too late, a lawyer for the news outlet has told the High Court.

Opening the case for the defence, Anthony White KC said journalists for the Daily Mail and Mail On Sunday sourced articles legitimately and have “compelling” accounts of doing so which will be shown during the trial.

Along with Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Baroness Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes, Harry is accusing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of unlawful information gathering during a period between 1993 and 2011.

As it happened: Mail knew Harry gave ex set of keys, court case against publisher told

The allegations range from tapping their phones and bugging their homes to obtaining private information by “blagging”, or deception, through the use of private investigators.

ANL is defending against what it has called “preposterous” claims and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Harry, Hurley and Sir Simon were in court for the second day of the trial on Tuesday. However, after their barrister David Sherborne finished his opening arguments, both the duke and Hurley left court during the lunch break, not waiting around to hear the ANL opening arguments.

White, representing ANL, told the court the case was “threadbare”.

Journalists working for the publisher provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles” and a series of witnesses will show this throughout the trial, he said.

This is in relation to 50-plus articles alleged to be the product of unlawful information gathering that the claimants are relying on to make their case, he added.

“We don’t pretend that that account is perfect and covers every detail, and not every journalist can remember every article, but we do say that, overall, it provides a compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles.”

Multiple Associated journalists and editors, past and present, are expected to give evidence at the High Court, including former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre.

Mr White said the claims accuse a large number of journalists of using unlawful methods to obtain information, and that they cannot all be lying when they say this did not happen.

The celebrities bringing the legal action had “leaky” social circles and information also came from sources including spokespeople and previous reporting, he said in his written opening argument to the court.

And addressing allegations of payments to private investigators, Mr White said these were “examples of clutching at straws in the wind and seeking to bind them together in a way that has no proper analytical foundation”.

Share

Harry v the Mail: Day one explained

Why is ANL arguing the claims are too late?

While strenuously denying allegations of wrongdoing, the barrister also argued the claims have been brought too late – as the law indicates that privacy claims should be brought within six years.

Mr Sherborne, representing the claimants, said this part of the defence is a “potential life raft in a sea of unlawful information gathering”, but that the publisher may not “be able to climb aboard”.

The legal action was launched in 2022. All seven of the claimants discovered they had “worthwhile” claims after 2016, he told the court.

Mr Sherborne, who began his opening statement on Monday, concluded his arguments on Tuesday morning, telling the court that while ANL has described the allegations as “preposterous”, the claimants say it is the publisher’s “position in this which is preposterous – and a particularly disgraceful one for the claimants to stomach, victims who have already suffered at the defendant’s hands”.

Read more:
Why seven household names are suing Mail publisher
This is Harry’s biggest case against the press – and stakes are high

Referencing Harry’s claim in particular, the barrister said the duke had suffered “distress” and “paranoia” due to unlawful information gathering.

“Given what we’ve seen, is it any wonder that he feels that way?” Sherborne said, before telling the court that Harry “feels he has endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him for having had the temerity to stand up to Associated in the way that he has so publicly done”.

ANL “strongly denies” that there was any unlawful information gathering, including voicemail interception, directed at the duke or his named associates.

Harry was expected to enter the witness box to give evidence on Thursday. However, due to a much briefer than expected opening argument by Mr White – which the judge noted was allowed due to full details being included in his written submissions – the duke could begin his evidence on Wednesday.

The trial continues.