Lawyers for Prince Harry and six other personalities are demanding “substantial” damages from the publishing company of the “Daily Mail”, whose trial for invasion of privacy before the High Court in London is due to end 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, in particular by using private detectives.
They gave often emotional testimonies during this trial which began more than two months ago, accusing the tabloids of having listened to private conversations or even lied to obtain medical information.
“The Court is requested to award substantial damages… to each of the plaintiffs for the improper use of private information concerning them,” the lawyers said in their final written submissions.
This is the latest lawsuit brought against the tabloids by Harry, youngest son of Charles III, who has been leading a legal crusade against the powerful British tabloid press for several years.
Monstrous
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, stepped away from the royal family in 2020 and moved to the United States.
British actress Liz Hurley also 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 castigating the “odious” attacks on his private life on the part of these publications, accused in particular of having accessed medical data surrounding the birth of his son Zachary.
The trial must conclude after the final arguments. The judge’s decision is expected to be made in writing at a later date.
In the rules
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, David Sherborne, said Monday that the “Daily Mail” journalists heard in court had “not been able to explain (how they 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 revealed in a series of articles published between 2000 and 2015.
The company ANL strongly denies any illegal behavior, affirming that its journalists used legitimate means and sources of information.
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, and did not need to resort to” a private detective.
But Dan Portley-Hanks, an American private detective, said he remembers working for the “Daily Mail” on subjects related to Prince Harry. “I know I did illegal things regarding him, but I don’t remember exactly what,” he wrote in a statement.
ANL argued that there was no evidence of “these so-called confessions.”
