Long before the focus turned to legal arguments and witness statements, this case was framed as a bigger fight about how powerful newspapers gather information.
Now, that tension has taken centre stage in the High Court, where Prince Harry and several other well-known figures are facing a robust defence from the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Defence dismisses claims as weak and speculative
Lawyers representing Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, told the court that the claims brought by the Duke of Sussex and six other high-profile figures simply do not stand up.
One barrister described the case as an attempt at “clutching at straws in the wind,” arguing that the accusations rely on assumptions rather than hard proof.
Associated has firmly denied all allegations that its journalists engaged in phone hacking, landline tapping, or other illegal methods to gather information, branding those claims as “preposterous” and “simply untrue.”
Who is involved in the legal battle?
Seven claimants are taking part in the case: Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen 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 allege that they were unlawfully targeted by journalists working for the newspaper group.
The defence, however, insists that the stories at the heart of the case were sourced through legitimate and lawful means.
Journalists point to lawful sources and open channels
Antony White KC, speaking for Associated Newspapers, told the court that journalists would give evidence explaining how information was obtained from proper sources.
He cited a 1997 front-page Daily Mail story about a forthcoming public inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, saying the details came directly from the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who personally briefed the editor.
Other disputed reports, the court heard, were allegedly based on information from Sir Elton John’s own publicist and Prince Harry’s press secretary.
Mr White also suggested that some claimants had friends or contacts who were willing to speak freely to journalists, including people within Prince Harry’s social circle.
Payments to investigators under scrutiny
A central plank of the claimants’ case involves documents showing payments from newspapers to private investigators.
The defence argued that these payments do not automatically prove illegal activity.
According to Mr White, using such documents as evidence of wrongdoing amounts to speculation rather than solid analysis.
He told the court that evidence from journalists named in the case paints a consistent picture of lawful reporting practices, adding that the claimants’ attempts to infer phone hacking and tapping had been “convincingly rebutted.”
Past admissions and firm denials from the publisher
The court was reminded of evidence given to the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 by former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who acknowledged that the paper had used inquiry agents until 2007, when the practice was largely banned.
However, Mr Dacre also said an internal investigation found no evidence of phone hacking at Associated.
Mr White said dozens of current and former journalists are prepared to testify, rejecting claims of widespread and habitual misconduct while acknowledging that third-party investigators were sometimes used before April 2007.
Disputed evidence from a private investigator
According to the defence, the only direct allegation of phone hacking and landline tapping comes from private investigator Gavin Burrows.
Mr White told the court that Mr Burrows has since disowned a witness statement relied upon by the claimants, saying it was not written by him and that the signature on it was forged.
Prince Harry prepares to take the stand
Prince Harry is expected to be the first claimant to give evidence and could enter the witness box as early as today.
He attended court to hear his barrister, David Sherborne, outline the case but left midway through the day.
Liz Hurley and her son Damian also departed after the morning session.
Mr Sherborne told the court that the Duke believes he was subjected to a sustained campaign for daring to challenge Associated publicly.
Damages, costs, and the search for accountability
The claimants are seeking what their lawyer described as “significant” damages if they succeed, with legal costs estimated at £38.8 million.
However, Mr Sherborne stressed that money is not the primary motivation behind the case.
According to him, the real aim is to uncover the truth about what happened and to force Associated Newspapers to take responsibility for any wrongdoing.
What’s next?
The trial is ongoing, with witness testimony expected to play a crucial role.
As Prince Harry prepares to give evidence, the court will now hear first-hand accounts that could determine whether this case reshapes the debate over press practices—or reinforces the publisher’s insistence that nothing unlawful took place.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn