By Tony O’Reilly-
The Duke of Sussex has returned to a London court for the second day of the trial of his legal claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, politician Sir Simon Hughes, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, are all bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Prince Harry’s legal representatives are seeking damages from allegations that The Daily Mail unlawfully intruded into his private life by unlawfully obtaining information through dubious means.
The duke, 41, is due to give evidence on Thursday as part of a trial which is due to last nine weeks. There is no love lust between Prince Harry and The British Media, with both parties, heavily under the scrutiny of the other.
The group, many of whom also attended court on Monday, claims that the publisher carried out or commissioned unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
ANL, which also publishes the Mail on Sunday, has strongly denied wrongdoing.
Representing the group on Monday, David Sherborne, for the group, said that ANL “knew they had skeletons in their closet” when they emphatically denied all claims of unlawful practices, and instead had a “culture of unlawful information gathering that wrecked the lives of so many”.
In written submissions, the barrister said the alleged unlawful information gathering in the duke’s case is related to 14 articles between 2001 and 2013.
He continued that ANL’s methods of information-gathering left the duke “paranoid beyond belief” and created a “massive strain” on personal relationships.
The barrister added: “The Duke of Sussex has been caused great distress by each and every episode of unlawful information gathering against him by Associated or on its behalf, and the fruits of that unlawful information gathering in the 14 unlawful articles of which he complains.”
The submissions also include Harry’s words, which say: “I find it deeply troubling that Associated used phrases such as ‘sources’, ‘friends’ and the like as a device to hide unlawful information gathering.”
David Sherborne outlined articles written about Prince Harry being chosen as godfather to his former nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke’s child, as well as his romance with Chelsy Davy at what sounds like the beginning of their relationship in November 2004.
Sherbone made reference to a particular article contained intimate details, the court has been told, at a point where Chelsy’s name was not known and journalists were trying to find it out.
Another article about Harry and Davy, on a holiday in South Africa, contained “references to her travel plans” – again, something which had security implications, the court was told.
A private investigator called Mike Behr provided the journalist with Davy’s flight details, the court heard. Sherborne said the journalist must have read and understood his message, as a payment was made for the information.
The court was told that the only way to find out this information would have been through Davy, because Harry always flew under a pseudonym, the court hears.
The explanation given by the journalist that she doesn’t remember, Sherborne says, is “implausible”.
The tabloid media had large interest in the Royal Family was huge, Sherbone told the court, adding no one sold more than the Duke of Sussex.
Harry is relying on 14 different articles published across the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday for his claim, and Sherborne tells the court the “vast majority” were attributed by name to two journalists – Katie Nicholl and Rebecca English.
The stories feature the “hallmarks” of unlawful information gathering, Sherborne says, and were published between 2001 and 2013.
He goes on to add that in the main they concentrated on the relationships Harry had before he met his wife Meghan, and that they were “highly intrusive” and “damaging”.
There were also potentially “serious security implications” of some of the details being published, he says.
In response to Harry’s claims, Antony White KC, for ANL, said in written submissions: “At all material times, the Duke of Sussex’s social circle was and was known to be a good source of leaks or disclosure of information to the media about what he got up to in his private life.”
Mr White said the duke had discussed his private life in the media, while information about his life was also provided by palace spokespeople.
The barrister also claimed it was “a striking feature of the case that none of the articles was the subject of complaint by the claimants at the time of publication”.
He said: “In relation to almost every article alleged to be the product of phone hacking or phone tapping, Associated is able to call a witness or witnesses to explain how the article was in fact sourced.
“The claimants’ inferential case of phone hacking and phone tapping is met and convincingly rebutted.
“The pattern of misconduct the claimants seek to establish is simply not made out.”
On Monday, the trial heard Prince Harry was made to feel “paranoid beyond belief” by alleged unlawful information gathering and felt his “every move, thought or feeling was being tracked”, according to a written submission by his lawyer
ANL said his social circle was “known to be a good source of leaks” to the press and has repeatedly denied the claimants’ allegations. The publication is due to set out its case.
Past damages and settlements
Harry is no stranger to taking the British press to court. In December 2023, the High Court found that Mirror Group Newspapers had engaged in unlawful information-gathering (including phone hacking) in relation to some of the stories about prince Harry. The judge awarded the duke of Sussex £140,600 in damages.
In February 2024 the remaining parts of his claim against MGN were settled out of court. Mirror Group agreed to pay additional “substantial” damages and legal costs as part of that settlement, raising his total recovery from MGN to a widely reported figure of more than £440,000 or possibly higher when costs are included.
Prince Harry and co-claimants reached a settlement with News Group Newspapers (publisher of The Sun and former News of the World) in January 2025, with NGN offering a full apology and agreeing to pay “substantial damages” for unlawful intrusion into his private life.
Estimates vary (from press reporting and legal commentators) — some place this settlement in the eight-figure range (i.e., £10 million+ total), though the precise figure hasn’t been publicly disclosed in court records.
Harry has also had success in a few smaller libel/privacy cases against UK publisher Associated Newspapers in earlier years, with undisclosed but real damages awarded (or undisclosed settlements) — though details for those are less publicly quantified.
Estimated total recoveries from these press actions (damages + settlements + costs awards) have been placed by some legal commentators at well over £10 million — largely driven by the NGN settlement — though exact totals aren’t fully public
However, Prince Harry brought a privacy misuse claim against Associated Newspapers relating to reporting on his security arrangements. That claim was struck out by the High Court because the articles did not meet the legal test for misuse of private information. The court also dismissed his appeal.
As a result, he did not win damages and was exposed to legal costs (which he had to bear). This is regarded as his clearest press litigation defeat in the UK courts to date.
Dropped Libel Case Against Daily Mail Publisher
Harry filed a libel suit in 2022 against the Daily Mail’s publisher (partly over coverage about his willingness to pay for his own UK security). That claim was withdrawn/dropped in 2024 after an unfavourable legal ruling, and he was ordered to pay the paper’s legal costs (about £50,000).
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar