The High Court has been hearing a complex and controversial case involving former phone hackers, private investigators, and a campaign targeting one of the UK’s largest newspaper groups.
At the center of the storm is the question of whether efforts to gather information were worth the money spent—and whether legal pressure campaigns crossed the line.
Over £20,000 Paid to Private Investigator
Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, himself a convicted phone hacker, received over £22,000 from former tabloid journalist Graham Johnson.
Johnson, who has links to the pressure group Hacked Off, commissioned the research to investigate alleged misconduct at the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday—claims the newspapers strongly deny.
The payments were intended to support a wider strategy: legally challenging the newspaper group while rallying public support to push for a reopening of the Leveson Inquiry, which examines press standards.
Frustration Over Performance
Court documents revealed a memo from Johnson expressing frustration with Mulcaire’s work.
He reportedly felt the investigator needed to “raise his game” and do more than produce brief notes for weekly payments.
Dr. Evan Harris, Hacked Off’s former director and a former Lib Dem MP, chimed in, saying: “I hope he does more than this brief note for his weekly money!”
Johnson replied that he was trying to motivate Mulcaire but admitted the investigator “neither responds to threats or praise” and that he had “b****cked him several times.”
High-Profile Privacy Claims
Johnson and Dr. Harris now work as part of a research group for seven high-profile figures pursuing a privacy case against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
The claimants include prominent names such as Prince Harry and Sir Elton John.
Associated Newspapers denies all allegations that its journalists instructed private investigators to hack phones, tap landlines, or obtain private information through deceit.
Disputes Over Evidence Sharing
During cross-examination by Antony White KC, Dr. Harris strongly denied accusations that he had shown evidence to potential claimants to persuade them to sue the Daily Mail.
Emails had suggested that he encouraged people like actress Sadie Frost and former Justice Minister Sir Simon Hughes to take legal action.
Dr. Harris maintained that while he wanted them to participate in the case, he did not provide any evidence to Frost or Hughes in 2016.
However, lawyers for Associated argue that both were shown information, meaning the legal time limit for them to bring claims has now expired. Both Frost and Hughes deny ever receiving the evidence.
Legal Battle Continues
The case remains ongoing as the High Court continues to examine the details of payments, communications, and alleged pressure tactics used against the newspaper group.
With high-profile claimants and accusations of historic misconduct, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for privacy law and press regulation in the UK.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn