Closing summary
The trial has been adjourned to 10.30am on Thursday after the Duke of Sussex finished giving evidence at the High Court into his legal claim against Associated Newspapers Limited.
Barrister David Sherborne, for the group of high-profile figures suing the publisher, said they were “not in a position to have anyone else ready” to give evidence on Wednesday.
Here is a summary of the day’s events:
Prince Harry has insisted he did not have a “leaky” social circle that gave stories about him to journalists at the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, as he told the high court the publisher of the titles had “an obsession” with surveilling him.
Giving evidence in the high court against Associated Newspapers Led (ANL), the Duke of Sussex rejected the publisher’s claims that its journalists had secured information about him from his friends and acquaintances, rather than through unlawful means.
Prince Harry broke down and appeared to be on the verge of tears as he said his treatment has “only got worse” from Associated since his litigation began. His voice cracked as he said: “They continue to come after me. They have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my lord.”
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), asked the Duke of Sussex about phone conversations he had with Rebecca English, now royal editor at the Daily Mail, during which he allegedly thanked her. Harry said he had no recollection of the calls, but that journalists were people who “we were forced to work with, we had to have some kind of relationship with them”.
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, claimed while cross-examining the Duke of Sussex that Harry used a Facebook profile named ‘Mr Mischief’ to contact a Mail On Sunday journalist. White was asking Harry whether he had met Charlotte Griffiths, who the barrister claimed moved in the duke’s “social circles”.
Harry said he had “never used the name Mr Mischief”, and that he had “no idea” if he had exchanged messages with Griffiths on Facebook.
The Duke of Sussex said in his written evidence that he was “really worried something bad was going to happen” when he was in a relationship with Chelsy Davy. Describing a surprise visit to Argentina by Davy, Harry said in his written evidence that he “suspected someone had been paid to reveal our plans”.
The Duke of Sussex has claimed it was “beyond cruel” to publish an article about “confidential discussions” he had after a photo of a dying Diana, Princess of Wales was published in the Italian press. In his written evidence, Harry described an article published in the Daily Mail in July 2006 as “really disgusting”, saying he was having private discussions with his brother, the now-Prince of Wales.
The Duke of Sussex said that he did not question denials of phone hacking made by Paul Dacre at the Leveson Inquiry “out of fear of retaliation”.
In his 23-page witness statement, Harry said that when he brought legal action against two other newspaper publishers, he had “no idea” that he had a claim against ANL. He continued: “As I am sure is clear, if I had known earlier then I would have acted, particularly given ANL’s treatment of Meghan and her claim against it.”
In response to a source close to the Duke of Sussex’s claim, who said Associated Newspapers Limited had used “game playing and dirty tricks” to bring forward Harry’s evidence, an Associated Newspapers spokesperson said: “Prince Harry has been in London since the weekend ready to give evidence in this case, which he launched three and half years ago. We don’t intend to dignify this briefing by the other side with any further comment.”
Read our full report on today’s evidence in court here:
Prince Harry appears on the verge of tears: "Press have made my wife’s life an absolute misery"
A poignant moment in court as Prince Harry breaks down and appears on the verge of tears, as he says his treatment has “only got worse” from Associated since his litigation began.
His voice cracks as he says: “They continue to come after me. They have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my lord.”
Updated
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, has finished questioning the Duke of Sussex in cross-examination.
David Sherborne, for Harry and the six others bringing legal action against the Daily Mail publisher, is now asking the duke questions in his re-examination.
The Duke of Sussex said he only learnt of the campaign group Hacked Off “in the last four or five years”.
Replying to questions by Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, Harry said: “I happen to think they do fantastic work, Mr White.”
White replied: “I am pleased to hear it.”
The barrister also said that if Harry wanted to inquire about the 14 articles complained of in the case, “an obvious inquiry or port of inquiry would have been Hacked Off to see what support they could give you”.
Harry replied that he didn’t think “that would have been acceptable or even an option” due to being part of the royal family.
The Duke of Sussex has returned to the witness box as the trial of his legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) resumed after the lunch adjournment, PA reports.
We will continue to bring you all the latest news lines. Stay tuned.
Harry: I didn't dare question denials of phone hacking 'out of fear of retaliation'
The Duke of Sussex has said that he did not question denials of phone hacking made by Paul Dacre at the Leveson Inquiry “out of fear of retaliation”.
In his witness statement, Harry said:
I do not see why Associated should get away with something they have covered up and lied about for however many years.
I simply do not understand how I could have discovered that I had these claims against Associated for the unlawful acts I am claiming about any earlier than I did, especially as current senior figures at Associated lied all those years ago, which everyone believed.
I remember Paul Dacre, in particular, clearly stating that phone hacking had not taken place at Associated.
By going on the offensive, rather than the defensive, they had me so convinced that I didn’t even think twice about it, nor did I dare question Paul Dacre out of fear of retaliation.
The advantage they had was that their approach appeared more belligerent than the rest; ‘if you dare take us on, we will destroy your life’ kind of approach. I don’t think it left anyone with any other option other than to believe Associated and accept they must be telling the truth.
Updated
In his written evidence, the Duke of Sussex said that the “bubble burst” after he stepped down as a working senior royal in 2020 and moved to North America.
Describing claims against News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of The Sun and the now defunct News Of The World, Harry said:
It was only really within the past few years that I found out that other individuals within or associated with the Institution, such as my friend Marko, had brought phone hacking claims against NGN.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the bubble burst in terms of what I knew in 2020 when I moved out of the United Kingdom.
To this day, there are members of the royal family and friends of mine who may have been targeted by NGN and I have no idea whether they have or have not brought claims.
Harry 'determined' to hold publisher accountable
“I am determined to hold Associated accountable, for everyone’s sake,” Harry’s written submission states.
The Duke of Sussex added:
I am therefore committed to pursuing this claim because I believe it is in the public’s interest.
If the defendant, the owner of various national newspapers, including the Daily Mail which, by its own definition, is 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.
Updated
In response to a source close to the Duke of Sussex’s claim, who said Associated Newspapers Limited had used “game playing and dirty tricks” to bring forward Harry’s evidence, an Associated Newspapers spokesperson said:
Prince Harry has been in London since the weekend ready to give evidence in this case, which he launched three and half years ago.
We don’t intend to dignify this briefing by the other side with any further comment.
In his written evidence, the Duke of Sussex described a Daily Mail article from 2013, which stated he “faces a lonely New Year’s Eve”, as “creepy”.
He said:
Associated published this article about my relationship with Cressida Bonas, including information about our whereabouts and plans.
The headline speaks to exactly how they wanted me to be: lonely, miserable, depressed.
Again, this article is creepy. Kensington Palace should not be talking about private matters, but just because someone said Cressida’s not coming for Christmas, how did they know she was on Richard Branson’s island?
It’s a horrible existence for a young girl to be stalked like this – they probably tracked Cressida or blagged information about her flight, and would have had her under surveillance like they did my other girlfriends.
Duke of Sussex claims he was 'forced to perform' for reporters
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), asked the Duke of Sussex about phone conversations he had with Rebecca English, now royal editor at the Daily Mail, during which he allegedly thanked her.
Harry said he had no recollection of the calls, but that journalists were people who “we were forced to work with, we had to have some kind of relationship with them”.
He added that he was “forced to perform” for reporters, sometimes at royal engagements, “knowing who they are and knowing full well the kind of stories they had written about me and how they have commercialised my private life”.
Harry, who took notes and occasionally sipped from a bottle of water while giving evidence, also said:
Yes, if there was an opportunity to befriend, through official channels, to be able to say ‘thank you’ or ‘are you ok?’, one would hope that would go a long way.
The duke also said that he thought the job of journalists was to “get stuff out of my friends”, earlier saying: “I am not friends with any of these journalists, and never have been.”
Updated
Discussing a Mail On Sunday article from October 2011, Harry said in his written evidence that the information in the story would have only been known by himself, Chelsy Davy and their close friends.
He continued:
It feels creepy, like you’re constantly being watched, and you can’t trust anyone around you.
It feels like every aspect of your life behind closed doors is being displayed to the world for amusement, entertainment and money.
The Duke of Sussex has said he “fundamentally” rejects the suggestion that “any coexisting with anybody means I have no private life”.
Harry also claimed that Paul Dacre, the former editor of the Daily Mail, “has been very good” at claiming that articles were in the public interest, and said Mr Dacre had “turned it into a business model”.
Justice Nicklin then said that witnesses “feel a particular pressure to make their point and to argue the point”, but continued: “You don’t have to do that, you just need to answer the questions.”
Harry responded that Associated Newspapers Ltd “have done a very good job of stripping out all the colour from the situations the claimants have been in”, that he had been under “24-hour surveillance” and that “people write about you claiming it is in the public interest when it clearly isn’t”.
Justice Nicklin said: “The careful balance between the public interest and the interference with privacy rights is one I have spent a career dealing with.”
Harry responded: “I just want you to have an idea of what it is like living in this world.”
The Duke of Sussex has claimed it was “beyond cruel” to publish an article about “confidential discussions” he had after a photo of a dying Diana, Princess of Wales was published in the Italian press.
In his written evidence, Harry described an article published in the Daily Mail in July 2006 as “really disgusting”, saying he was having private discussions with his brother, the now-Prince of Wales.
Harry said in his witness statement: “If Associated was willing to publish this type of material, then it really makes me wonder how far they are prepared to go and what else they learnt but never published because they would get caught.
“The amount of information and detail in this article would not have come from Clarence House; they were plainly listening in to calls as well as spending large sums on private investigators.
“To do that is simply shameful but to publish it I feel is beyond cruel and an abuse of journalistic privilege which I find extremely upsetting.”
There “would be a lot more out there” if three people who the Duke of Sussex described as some of his “closest friends” had decided to speak to the press, the High Court has heard.
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, suggested to Harry that comments from the duke of him talking about being in love with Chelsy Davy while at a campfire in Botswana could only have become known to Mail journalists if someone had told them.
Harry said the information was more likely picked up when he “talked about it on a voicemail” or other communication.
He added: “The quote is being attributed to three strangers. You are now trying to suggest that these three strangers are some of my closest friends. That does not add up.”
He continued: “These three people have never shared anything with anybody. If they had, there would be a lot more out there.”
Harry accuses the press of 'wanting to drive me to drugs to sell papers'
In his written witness statement, Harry makes serious claims against the publisher, all of which it denies.
Harry said the publisher waged “a campaign, an obsession of having every aspect of my life under surveillance so they could get the run on their competitors and drive me paranoid beyond belief, isolating me, and probably wanting to drive me to drugs and drinking to sell more of their papers”.
Updated
The Duke of Sussex has said in his written evidence that he was “really worried something bad was going to happen” when he was in a relationship with Chelsy Davy.
Describing a surprise visit to Argentina by Davy, Harry said in his written evidence that he “suspected someone had been paid to reveal our plans”.
He continued: “I was never suspicious of Chelsy in relation to stories like this but I was of her friends. If I saw this story at the time, I would have been very frustrated and angry.
“I would have questioned how Associated found out this information. But, at the same time, I would have felt like I had to accept this as the reality of my life.
“This sort of intrusion was terrifying for Chelsy: it made her feel like she was being hunted and the press had caught her and it was terrifying for me too because there was nothing I could do to stop it and now she was in my world.
“She was ‘shaken’ and I was really paranoid about trying to protect our privacy, as the article says.
“Their behaviour and treatment of Chelsy was not normal. I was really worried something bad was going to happen.”
Harry said he 'always expected' to be followed when travelling
In his written evidence, he said:
“If someone was dating me, they might assume that they would be photographed coming out of a restaurant or a concert but you would never expect to experience full blown harassment.
“Whenever I got on a plane, or in a car, I always expected I was being followed. I was under 24-hour surveillance.
“Because of my position as a member of the Royal Family, both my security team and I always had security concerns even before I had arrived at a location because of how often the press knew about our every movement, sometimes hiding at a location before we even got there.
“The security risk was particularly great when we were abroad and could not always rely on police assistance.”
“However, despite feeling like I was under constant surveillance I knew nothing of Associated’s unlawful acts that were directed at me and those around me.
“Clearly much of what was happening to me and others around me was due to that.”
Updated
Prince Harry: 'My social circles were not leaky'
The atmosphere has been tense between Prince Harry and Antony White, who is cross-examining him for Associated.
White is trying to establish that some of the journalists who write the 14 articles that Harry has complained about were in or on the fringes of his social circle and could have got stories through legitimate means.
Harry bristled at any suggestion of this and pushed back on the extent at which the journalists were in his circle, or whether his social circle would have shared information with them.
“My social circles were not leaky,” he said, adding that if he had suspicions about someone, he was forced to cut them off.
Updated
The Duke of Sussex has said he “can’t believe for a second” that if journalists for Associated Newspapers Limited saw rival reporters using unlawful information gathering (UIG) then they would do the same.
Speaking about a wedding in Jamaica where he said two journalists from The Sun had checked into a hotel two days before he arrived, he said: “I would certainly assume that the knowledge of us going to this wedding was found through UIG.
“I can’t believe for a second that if your competitor is using UIG then you would not too, to beat them to the punch.”
The duke also said that at the time he would “cut communication” with friends he believed could be giving information to the press.
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, claimed while cross-examining the Duke of Sussex that Harry used a Facebook profile named ‘Mr Mischief’ to contact a Mail On Sunday journalist.
White was asking Harry whether he had met Charlotte Griffiths, who the barrister claimed moved in the duke’s “social circles”.
Harry said he had “no idea that she was a journalist” when they met over a weekend in 2011, but White said that Griffiths claimed they met in Ibiza.
The duke said: “I don’t think that can be right. I don’t believe I have ever been to Ibiza other than with my now wife [the Duchess of Sussex].”
White then claimed that Harry used the Facebook profile named ‘Mr Mischief’ to communicate with Ms Griffiths, suggesting that the duke “exchanged friendly messages” and his mobile number with her on social media.
Harry said he had “never used the name Mr Mischief”, and that he had “no idea” if he had exchanged messages with Griffiths on Facebook.
The Duke of Sussex has claimed that “knowingly false” information was added to Daily Mail and Mail On Sunday stories “in order to put me off the scent”.
He said in his witness statement: “It is disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it.
“And that knowingly false information was added to their stories in order to put me off the scent.”
Harry described that his relationship with presenter Natalie Pinkham “broke down precisely because of the distrust and it led to me not speaking to her for years”.
He continued: “It seemed as though someone was leaking these stories but I now believe that it will have come from listening in to our communications, voicemail interception and/or blagging.”
In his written evidence, Harry said that he was “misled” by Associated Newspapers Limited about the source of the private information used in the articles in the case.
He continued: “Due to the false attribution of the private information contained in the unlawful articles, I always suspected those close to me, including my friends and bodyguards, of being the sources of that private information.
“I believed that Associated had a legitimate source for that information.
“I had no reason to suspect that it had invented the source to conceal the fact that my private information had been obtained by unlawful means.
“Moreover, I believed their sworn testimonies and the Leveson Inquiry and I didn’t believe anyone would be so brazen to lie under oath given the very serious consequences of doing so.”
Antony White, leading Associated’s defence, has previously said that the duke’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”.
The Duke of Sussex has been told he doesn’t “have to bear the burden of arguing the case today” after the beginning of his cross-examination by barristers for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
The duke told the court that he had a “bad experience with Mr Green”, referring to Andrew Green KC, who represented Mirror Group Newspapers in a separate legal battle with Harry in 2023, during which he also gave evidence.
Justice Nicklin told the duke that if Antony White KC, for ANL, made a statement that he disputed, “then you can simply say, ‘I don’t accept that’, or ‘I don’t know about that’.”
White told Harry: “I am intent on you not having a bad experience with me, but it is my job to ask you these questions.”
In his 23-page witness statement, Harry said that when he brought legal action against two other newspaper publishers, he had “no idea” that he had a claim against ANL.
He continued: “As I am sure is clear, if I had known earlier then I would have acted, particularly given ANL’s treatment of Meghan and her claim against it.”
The Duke of Sussex continued in his witness statement: “However, in late 2016, when my relationship with Meghan, my now wife, became public, I started to become increasingly troubled by the approach of not taking action against the press in the wake of vicious persistent attacks on, harassment of and intrusive, sometimes racist articles concerning Meghan.
“The situation got worse when she became pregnant and after our son, Archie, was born.”
The duke referenced the legal action issued against ANL in October 2019 by the Duchess of Sussex over the publication of a letter she had sent to her father, adding that he also issued unlawful information gathering claims against News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers the same year.
He continued: “This was the first time I had my own legal representation outside of the Institution.
“Until that point, this had never occurred to me to be a possibility.”
The Duke of Sussex has said he did not complain about some of the articles at the centre of his claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail “because of the institution I was in”.
Antony White KC, for ANL, said: “You tell us that you were aware of some but not all of the 14 articles that you complain of in these proceedings at the time they were published.”
The duke replied: “Yes.”
White then said that the duke “did not complain and no complaint was made on your behalf” about the articles Harry was aware of, to which he said: “Not that I am aware of.”
White continued: “That is because you believed, at the time that the articles were published, in so far as you saw them, that the information they contained came from legitimate sources.”
The duke replied: “To a certain extent, but I would not have been able to complain about them anyway, because of the institution I was in.”
Updated
When asked by Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited, the Duke of Sussex said it was “pretty convincing” that journalists had sourced information about him from his friends at the time they were published.
He said: “That was the way the articles had been written, a source said this, an insider said this.”
White also said “people did sometimes provide information”.
The duke replied: “It’s probably helpful to put some context. When you are in a situation like this, the moment something private is out, your circle of trust and knowledge decreases over time.”
He continued: “The stuff in these articles is not the kind of stuff I would talk about openly.”
For context, Associated’s legal team said in written submissions that the stories had been obtained “entirely legitimately from information variously provided by contacts of the journalists responsible, including individuals in the Duke of Sussex’s social circle, press officers and publicists, freelance journalists, photographers and prior reports”.
Prince Harry begins his testimony in court, saying he's 'always had an uneasy relationship with the press'
In his witness statement for the trial, the Duke of Sussex said he has always had an “uneasy relationship” with the press, PA reports.
He said:
Following the death of my mother in 1997 when I was 12 years old and her treatment at the hands of the press, I have always had an uneasy relationship with them.
However, as a member of the institution the policy was to ‘never complain, never explain’.
There was no alternative; I was conditioned to accept it. For the most part, I accepted the interest in my performing my public functions.
Updated
David Sherborne, representing Harry and the group of household names bringing the claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail, asked the Duke of Sussex how he would like to be addressed, and if this would be as “Your Royal Highness”.
Harry replied: “Same as last time.”
When asked how that was, Harry added: “I can’t remember”.
This prompted laughter from those assembled in the packed courtroom, with Sherborne confirming it was as “Prince Harry”.
Meanwhile, Justice Nicklin has returned to the courtroom and the duke has returned to the witness box after the audio issues on the remote video link were resolved.
There is a short interruption before the Duke of Sussex begins giving evidence due to issues with audio on the remote video link, which is being used by dozens of people to follow proceedings.
Justice Nicklin said he would leave court for a few minutes, saying: “If I can’t remedy it, I think I need to remedy that.”
He continued: “We will try to get it fixed, and I am sorry for the interruption.”
The Duke of Sussex has stepped into the witness box to give evidence in his legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Wearing a dark suit and striped tie, Harry swore on the Bible while taking the oath, PA reports.
Harry is expected to give evidence for a day, with Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), cross-examining him before his barrister, David Sherborne, asks him some questions.
The third day of the trial of the Duke of Sussex’s legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail has begun at the High Court.
The duke is due to give evidence on Wednesday, where he will be cross-examined by the publisher’s barristers.
The trial before Justice Nicklin at the Royal Courts of Justice in London is due to conclude in March.
Analysis: high-stakes trial could have profound effects on UK media
My colleague Geraldine McKelvie offered an insight into the potential impact of the trial in a piece published this weekend:
On Monday, Prince Harry’s legal war with the Daily Mail, one of the British media’s most formidable forces, finally came to trial in court 76 of the high court in London.
The prince is joined in his action by some of the most recognisable figures in British life: the singer and songwriter Elton John and his husband, David Furnish; actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost; Doreen Lawrence, a Labour peer whose son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack; and former politician Simon Hughes, who once ran to lead the Liberal Democrats.
Their opponent is the publisher of Britain’s bestselling newspaper, with its long-serving editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, expected to give evidence.
The allegations against the Daily Mail and its stablemate, the Mail on Sunday, are grave.
Harry and his fellow claimants allege that, as well as intercepting voicemails, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday also tapped landlines, paid corrupt police officers, blagged medical records and even bugged celebrities’ homes.
The titles’ publisher, Associated Newspapers, has described the claims as “preposterous” and an “affront to the hard-working journalists whose reputations and integrity … are wrongly traduced”.
Updated
Prince Harry arrives at court to give evidence
Prince Harry has arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and is due to begin giving evidence at 11.30am.
He arrived at the court building in a black Range Rover and waved at a row of rain-soaked reporters as he met his legal team.
Here are some photos of the royal arriving:
Updated
Prince Harry feels targeted for ‘standing up’ to Daily Mail publisher
The Duke of Sussex believes he has faced a “sustained campaign” of attacks for having “the temerity to stand up” to the publisher of the Daily Mail, the high court heard on Tuesday.
Lawyers for Prince Harry made the claim as they set out 14 articles about him they allege were secured using unlawful information-gathering by Associated Newspapers Ltd, which publishes the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.
Harry will now appear in court today to give evidence – a day earlier than expected – as he and six other prominent claimants attempt to disprove the newspaper group’s repeated and vehement denials that it ever engaged in unlawful information-gathering.
David Sherborne, the barrister representing the duke and other claimants, claimed flight details and sensitive information that had serious implications for Harry’s security had been obtained unlawfully.
“In his witness statement for the trial, the Duke of Sussex speaks of the impact which this has had on him, the distress, the paranoia and the other feelings that it generated,” Sherborne told the high court in London.
“But given what we’ve seen, is it any wonder that he feels that way, or as he explains, that he feels he has endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him for having had the temerity to stand up to Associated in the way that he has so publicly done?”
The duke’s concern about his treatment emerged as Sherborne set out key parts of the case against the publisher. He highlighted articles he said bore the “hallmarks of unlawful information-gathering”.
Prince Harry due to give evidence in court at 11.30am
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of Prince Harry v Daily Mail, on the day that that the former is due to give evidence in court.
A spokesman for Harry said the duke was expected at court at 11am and would start giving evidence at 11.30am.
Harry, Elton John and his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, politician Simon Hughes, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley are all bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering.
This includes claims that information for articles was obtained by carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as phone tapping and “blagging” private records. ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims.
We will be bringing you updates throughout the day.
Updated
