Private lives violated: Prince Harry, Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley want “substantial” compensation from the Daily Mail

Harry is always on the offensive. Lawyers for Prince Harry and six other personalities are seeking “substantial” damages for invasion of privacy from the Daily Mail publishing company, whose trial before the High Court in London ends on Tuesday.

These plaintiffs, which also include Elton John and actress Elizabeth Hurley, accuse Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), owner of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, of having obtained information about them illegally. The defense refers to “speculation”.

During this trial, which began more than two months ago, these personalities gave testimonies sometimes marked by emotion. They accuse the tabloids of having – in particular by using private detectives – intercepted voice messages, listened to telephone conversations, or even of having lied in order to obtain medical information, to feed more than fifty articles published between 1993 and 2018.

“The Court is requested to award substantial damages (…) to each of the plaintiffs for the improper use of private information concerning them,” the lawyers declared in their final written submissions.

This is the latest lawsuit brought against the tabloids by Harry, youngest son of King Charles III, who has been leading a legal crusade against the powerful British tabloid press for several years.

Harry, who lives in California with his wife Meghan and their two children, blames the paparazzi for the death of his mother Diana in 1997 in Paris. He also accused the press of harassing Meghan.

At the court in January, on the verge of tears, he accused the tabloids of having made his wife’s life “absolutely hellish”. He also recounted how the newspapers’ repeated intrusions into his private life had made him “paranoid to the extreme.”

Harry, 41, withdrew from the royal family in 2020 and moved to the United States.

“Monstrous” actions

The ANL company assures that its journalists relied on legitimate sources to write their articles. “When there is a suspicion of criminal behavior, it is not assumed that it has occurred unless there is evidence to the contrary,” attorney Antony White, representing ANL, said Monday.

“Ordinary, legitimate journalism, relying on prior reporting or confidential sources, is more likely than phone hacking, wiretapping or other forms of illegal information gathering,” he argued in court.

ANL does not deny the use of private detectives but denies that they could have been used illegally. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, David Sherborne, for his part estimated on Monday that the Daily Mail journalists heard in court had “not been able to explain (how they had obtained) the exclusive information contained in their articles”.

Prince Harry and the other plaintiffs assure that their relatives would never have disclosed the private information that was published in the articles in question.

While testifying in January, British actress Liz Hurley burst into tears while accusing the tabloids of having placed microphones on the windows of her house, denouncing “monstrous” actions.

Elton John also let his anger explode by speaking via video link in February, castigating the “odious” attacks on his private life on the part of publications, accused in particular of having accessed medical data surrounding the birth of his son Zachary.

“Absolute rubbish”

Lawyer Antony White denounced the accusations made “against renowned journalists”. The Daily Mail’s chief reporter, Sam Greenhill, called the wiretapping accusations “absolute rubbish” in court.

Another journalist, Barbara Jones, notably assured that she herself had found information on Harry’s former girlfriend, and that she “did not resort to, and did not need to resort to” a private detective.

But Dan Portley-Hanks, an American private investigator, said he remembers working for the Daily Mail on topics related to Prince Harry. “I know I did illegal things regarding him, but I don’t remember exactly what,” he wrote in a statement. The judge’s decision is expected to be made in writing at a later date.