Related Articles
Lawyers representing Prince Harry and six other prominent figures have accused the publisher of the Daily Mail of “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” to secure stories about them.
In a witness statement submitted to the court, the Duke of Sussex accused the newspaper group of subjecting him to “intrusion [that] was terrifying” for loved ones, creating a “massive strain” on his personal relationships. He said it had the effect of “driv[ing] me paranoid beyond belief, isolating me”.
Harry was in the high court for the start of the case against Associated Newspapers Ltd, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. It is his latest and final claim against newspaper publishers over alleged unlawful techniques.
Prince Harry is part of a group of high-profile figures bringing the action against the newspaper group. They include Doreen Lawrence, the campaigning mother of Stephen Lawrence, who was killed in a racist murder more than 30 years ago.
Sir Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, the actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, and the former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes are also part of the action. Harry, Hurley, Frost and Hughes were all in court for the start of the trial.
In written submissions to the court, the claimants’ legal team said alleged unlawful acts included using private investigators to illegally intercept voicemail messages, listening in to live landline calls, and obtaining 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 said the alleged acts involved “journalists from both the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and every significant editorial desk” over two decades.
He said he would demonstrate a “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering at both the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday”.
“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,” he said. “That is why we say this was no clean ship, far from it.”
Associated Newspapers has denied any wrongdoing, previously describing the claims as “lurid” and “preposterous”.
Sherborne said that repeated claims by Associated Newspapers that it was not involved in unlawful information gathering, including during the Leveson inquiry into the practices of the press, “were not true”. Sherborne said Associated Newspapers had adopted a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil defence”.
The claimants allege the activities took place between 1993 and 2011, “even continuing beyond until 2018, and even beyond the specific articles that deployed the fruits of this wrongdoing and unlawful episodes”.
“There can be little doubt that journalists and executives across the Mail titles engaged in or were complicit in the culture of unlawful information gathering that wrecked the lives of so many,” their written submission states.
The claimants will refer to 14 individuals who were private investigators, or carrying out activities similar to a private investigator.
However, Sherborne also complained that a huge amount of material had been destroyed. He said there were “masses” of missing documents, including the “mass destruction” of emails before 2004. Associated has argued this was down to a company email deletion policy.
Sherborne alleged Associated Newspapers “knew they had skeletons in their closet” because it had investigated the use of phone hacking between 2003 and 2005, before the Leveson inquiry took place.
In written submissions on behalf of the newspaper group, its lawyers said the allegation that unlawful practices were widespread at Associated’s titles “was simply untrue”.
They also said the legal action against the titles had come as a result of a “coordinated strategy” in which prominent claimants were “recruited and corralled”.
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, said in written submissions that other than a now “disavowed” witness statement from the private investigator Gavin Burrows, the allegations of phone hacking and tapping were “wholly inferential”.
“This is in reality little more than guess work,” the written submission said. “It involves jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, or worse, artificially selecting and presenting evidence to fit the preconceived agenda.”
Sherborne used the first day of the trial to list some of the private investigators the claimants allege worked on behalf of Associated Newspapers, using unlawful means.
It included an allegation that a Daily Mail journalist instructed a private investigator to obtain information from Lady Lawrence “on the false pretext she was a journalist from the Guardian”.
In witness statements, Lawrence said her claims of unlawful information gathering by the Daily Mail against her was like “history repeating itself” and that she felt “profoundly betrayed” and “violated”.
Lawyers for Associated Newspapers have said claims it targeted Lawrence are “unsupported by the available evidence”.
Whatever the outcome, the case is expected to prove extremely expensive. Costs could be as much as £38m. Prince Harry’s claims relate to 14 articles that are alleged to have been produced using unlawful means.
The trial is expected to last up to 10 weeks.
Source link
