BBC News
Prince Harry's deep frustration during the court proceedings was unmistakable.
The intense 10-week court battle laid bare Prince Harry's ongoing frustration with the media. The proceedings featured a dramatic switch in witness allegiance, several contentious interactions with the judge, and poignant moments of emotional testimony.
In attendance were prominent figures including model Elizabeth Hurley, actress Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John, and his spouse David Furnish, as well as campaigner Baroness Lawrence and former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes. Collectively, they pursued legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited, alleging the misuse of their private information. This case, among a series of hacking trials, yielded several key insights.
A Contentious Courtroom Dispute
This legal confrontation has proven to be the most challenging newspaper court case to date, and if the allegations at its core are substantiated, they may severely damage the reputation of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The accusations claim that journalists at these publications knowingly engaged third parties to tap phones, hack into computers, listen to voicemail messages, and obtain private information through dishonest means. Since these actions are criminal offenses, the stakes in this trial were particularly high.
Associated Newspapers has categorically denied any unlawful conduct.
While Prince Harry previously engaged in legal actions against Mirror Group Newspapers and Rupert Murdoch's News Group, substantial evidence of media misconduct was already available. However, Mr. Justice Nicklin, overseeing this case, aimed for a streamlined trial. Unlike prior cases, he mandated that the seven claimants refrain from revisiting previously uncovered evidence or making general claims against the newspapers. They were required to present concrete evidence to demonstrate that specific stories resulted from what has been termed "unlawful information gathering" with the knowledge of Mail journalists.
This requirement significantly increased the complexity of the claim for Prince Harry and his legal team.
In a display of tension that frustrated the judge, Prince Harry's attorney, David Sherborne, frequently tested the boundaries of this directive, leading to multiple heated exchanges in front of the observing court.
The Claimants' Collective Outrage
The claimants delivered emotional testimonies throughout the trial.
Prince Harry appeared in court to testify personally, spending two hours in the witness stand where he expressed that the two newspapers had subjected him to "an endless pursuit, a campaign, an obsession with having every aspect of my life under surveillance." His evident anger often necessitated reminders to answer the questions posed, rather than making sweeping assertions.
Elizabeth Hurley became visibly emotional while recounting the impact of media coverage regarding her child's paternity dispute involving American businessman Steve Bing.
It was evident that the claimants firmly rejected any notion that the details of their private lives were legitimate subjects for the Mail newspapers.
A Private Investigator's Shift in Allegiance
Prince Harry's legal representatives claimed that private investigator Gavin Burrows had signed a statement in 2021 attesting to the serious wrongdoing alleged against the Mail newspapers. However, after a dispute with a journalist assisting in gathering evidence against the Mail in 2022, Burrows retracted his support for Prince Harry's team.
He alleged that his signature on the primary witness statement was forged, which forced Sherborne to treat Burrows as a hostile witness rather than an ally in their case.
Additionally, Jerry Yanover, a former police officer dismissed for misconduct, testified that he had performed unlawful work for Burrows, who he claimed had boasted about being hired by the Mail.
The judge expressed skepticism about the validity of Burrows' testimony multiple times, prompting questions about the case's viability should his evidence be excluded.
Anthony White KC, representing Associated Newspapers, asserted that the most damaging allegations against their case would become untenable without Burrows' testimony.
Payments to an Informant Network
The trial revealed that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday engaged in substantial financial transactions with a network of informants who provided journalists with story information.
Freelance sources offered tips and details, including a South African reporter who acquired Prince Harry and his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy's travel itineraries. An experienced UK freelancer also contributed to stories about Sadie Frost's tumultuous relationship with Jude Law, with the claimants asserting that these were gathered through unlawful methods.
The publisher contended, however, that they merely had exceptional sources.
Evidence indicated that the newspapers employed as many as 14 private investigators to collect information. One notable investigator, Steve Whittamore from Hampshire, communicated with journalists from an email account linked to unlawful dealings. He stated that his contacts gained access to criminal records and driving information through deceptive means.
Associated Newspapers has acknowledged utilizing private investigators, including Whittamore. Journalists who testified maintained that they believed investigators had access to legitimate databases that facilitated quicker retrieval of public information during an era of limited online resources. These investigators were helpful for confirming story accuracy and locating celebrities for response. Notably, Daily Mail Editor Paul Dacre prohibited the usage of investigators in 2007 following several convictions for data protection violations.
Anthony White KC emphasized that a substantial number of seasoned journalists willingly came forward to defend their integrity, suggesting there was no guilt among them since this was a civil trial and they could have opted to decline participation.
Documented Evidence in Question
White stated that Associated Newspapers sought through extensive searches of 20,000 boxes of documents for pertinent evidence as part of the court's disclosure process. However, he noted that little relevant material was recovered, primarily because the allegations trace back 25 years.
The claimants presented a leaked “ledger” of payments made by Associated Newspapers, invoices from private investigators, and excerpts from journalists' notebooks with ambiguous notations of payments to informants.
However, establishing that payments were specifically made for unlawful information proved to be a significant challenge.
"It's akin to trying to play pin the tail on the donkey while being partly blindfolded with barely any donkey left for us to pin the tail on," Sherborne remarked.
When detailing evidence purported to demonstrate that each article was unlawfully obtained, he often conceded the absence of definitive documentation. The judge would need to infer wrongdoing based on the existence of private information within the articles, and Sherborne alleged that Mail journalists exhibited a "propensity" for employing illicit practices.
However, he encountered obstacles when Mr. Justice Nicklin inquired about the most compelling single piece of evidence for each article, leading Sherborne to respond, “We are asking your lordship to extrapolate."
The judge subsequently indicated that rather than substantiating his case, Sherborne seemed to be shifting the burden of proof onto the newspapers regarding their story sourcing.
Journalists Questioned on Story Origins
Typically, newspaper reporters are not required to publicly justify their actions; however, this trial subjected veterans from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday to rigorous cross-examination.
Katie Nicholl, a former Royal Editor at Mail on Sunday, and Rebecca English, the current Royal Editor at Daily Mail, faced repeated questioning regarding the sources for their information on Prince Harry. They claimed that either they or their sources were within his social circle, indicating that communications with his friends were a common practice.
Stephen Wright, the former crime editor at the Mail, who led the campaign for justice for Stephen Lawrence, expressed his deep distress over what he termed “despicable” allegations of using illegal methods, struggling to explain his past interactions with a corrupt police officer he claimed merely kept "warm as a contact." He vehemently denied the allegations of paying the police for information, which constitutes a criminal offense.
For many journalists, the most significant challenge lay in recalling specific details about articles they authored—often among thousands—over a decade ago.
Potentially the Final Case of Its Nature
With the term "phone-hacking" entering public awareness two decades ago, and 15 years since the closure of the scandal-plagued News of the World, the temporal distance has posed increased difficulties for Prince Harry and his six co-claimants in substantiating their allegations.
Certain time constraints surrounding privacy claims may still lead to the rejection of some allegations against Associated Newspapers by the judge.
It is likely that this challenging trial will mark the conclusion of the Duke of Sussex's campaign against major newspaper entities. As Prince Harry seeks to mend his relationships within the Royal Family, continued litigation does not align with Buckingham Palace's preferences.
In contemporary times, it is increasingly common for celebrities to disclose personal information via social media rather than facing revelations from clandestine investigators. The trial itself centered around narratives published in print, while the landscape of information dissemination has evolved significantly.
Share this story