By Sheila Mckenzie-
Prince Harry’s lawyer has accused the Daily Mail’s parent company of “gaslighting” victims by covering up its journalists’ alleged illegal behaviour.
Barrister David Sherborne alleged that Associated Newspapers publicly insisted it stuck to the law, while privately knowing that reporters relied on a wide range of illegal techniques including voicemail interception, blagging of personal information, and placing listening devices inside cars. Associated denies the claims.
The claim comes a day after Prince Harry(pictured) expressed deep concern by by the paper’s alleged “unchecked power, influence and criminality”.
The Prince also claimed he was kept out of Royal Family discussions about taking legal action on phone hacking.
Doreen Lawrence has alleged that a Daily Mail journalist instructed a private investigator to target her at the same time as the Daily Mail was publicly campaigning on behalf of her murdered son, Stephen Lawrence.
Sherborne told the high court in London: “That is nothing short of gaslighting Baroness Lawrence. That’s the concealment we are talking about.”
Other litigants in the case include Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Elizabeth Hurley and Simon Hughes, the former Liberal Democrat MP, in bringing the legal action against Associated Newspapers.
Sherborne told the court that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday hid their illegal behaviour by disguising the use of inappropriately obtained material in newspaper articles. The lawyer said the newspapers would print illegally gathered material in the form of quotes from “friends” of the victims, leaving individuals convinced that their inner circle had sold them out to the media.
He said this tactic was tantamount to covering up crimes. “This creates the very paranoia and suspicion that leads people off the scent,” he said.
The duke’s statement criticises attempts by the publisher in court this week to have the case thrown out for legal reasons.
“Unfair is not a big enough word to describe the fact that Associated is trying at this early stage to prevent me from bringing my claim,” the statement reads.
“If the most influential and popular newspaper in the UK can evade justice without there being a trial of my claims, then what does that say about the industry as a whole and the consequences for our great country.
“I am bringing this claim because I love my country and I remain deeply concerned by the unchecked power, influence and criminality of Associated.”
A document filed on Harry’s behalf right from the beginning of the trial by barrister David Sherborne said: “In particular, suspicion and paranoia was caused by Associated’s publication of the unlawful articles: friends were lost or cut off as a result and everyone became a ‘suspect’ since he was misled by the way that the articles were written into believing that those close to him were the source of this information being provided to Associated’s newspapers.”
He added: “The claimant regards Associated’s unlawful acts to amount to a major betrayal given promises made by the media to improve its conduct following the tragic and untimely death of his mother, Princess Diana, in 1997.
Preposterous Smears
Associated Newspapers strongly denies all the allegations as “preposterous smears” and is attempting to have the cases thrown out before they go to a full trial. The publisher told the court that Harry and his fellow claimants were “far too late” in filing their legal paperwork, meaning their cases should not be heard.
Individuals generally have six years after discovering they were potential victims to bring a case. Associated argued that Harry and his fellow claimants should have known they were the potential victims of illegality by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday in the early 2010s, meaning they had missed the deadline to bring their case.
Sherborne responding by stating that it was impossible for the cases to have been filed earlier because Harry and the other claimants only recently discovered they were potential victims. He also referenced “vociferous and prolific denials of any wrongdoing” made by senior executives at Associated Newspapers under oath to the Leveson inquiry into media ethics.