In a defining moment of his evidence to the High Court, Prince Harry appeared, briefly, to slip under the weight of emotion.
Before making claims over “24-hour surveillance” and “people write about you claiming it is in the public interest when it clearly isn’t”, the Duke of Sussex was told by judge Mr Justice Nicklin that, as a witness, he did not have to argue his point; he just had to answer the questions put to him.
Harry said: “I just want you to have an idea of what it is like living in this world.”
For 45 days, the Royal Courts of Justice hosted a trial which heard claims by Harry and six other household names, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, against the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Alleging unlawful information gathering, from landline tapping to obtaining information through deception, the claimants had suffered “violation”, “profound betrayal” and “shock and horror”, the court heard.
But it was Prince Harry, in his third legal dispute with a newspaper group, who caught most of the media attention, as he shed light on his relationships under the tabloid spotlight during a two-hour exchange with lawyers acting on behalf of ANL.
ANL strongly denied the claims, saying it had a “culture of professionalism and discipline”. Antony White KC said the group’s claim had been conceived by press reform campaign group Hacked Off, as a “political campaign”, and that the publisher had mounted a “robust and comprehensive” defence.
The stakes for both sides are high as Mr Justice Nicklin hands down his ruling on Tuesday. Here, The Independent looks at the case by numbers:
Two hours: Harry faces questions
As the Duke of Sussex took to the witness stand, laughter rippled through the courtroom when he admitted not being able to remember how he was referred to the last time he was in court – but by the end of the session, Harry was close to tears.
Answering questions from barrister David Sherborne, for the group suing ANL, Harry said: “They continue to come after me, they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my Lord.”
Dressed in a dark suit and striped tie, Harry spent around two hours in the witness box, swearing an oath on the Bible before he started giving evidence. Taking notes and asking for hard copies of news articles that he was being questioned about, he said he did not have “leaky” social circles.
He said: “When you are in a situation like this, the moment something private is out, your circle of trust and knowledge decreases over time.” He added: “The stuff in these articles is not the kind of stuff I would talk about openly.”
Harry also claimed he was “forced” to work with reporters and said it was “beyond cruel” to publish an article about “confidential discussions” he had after a photo of a dying Diana 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.
On the witness stand, he said: “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.”
ANL strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims.
Four years, a 45-day trial: Wait for judgment after claim papers were first served
October, 2022 was when the claim form was first filed by the seven claimants against ANL, before, almost four years later, the trial started at the Royal Courts of Justice on 19 January. It lasted 45 days until 31 March, when closing arguments from all parties were complete.
On 7 July this year, 1,370 days after the claim forms were first filed on 6 October, a judgment was expected.
Seven claimants: Harry among household names waiting on ruling
The Duke of Sussex and a group of other household names face a wait to find out whether they have won their High Court cases against the Daily Mail’s publisher.
During an 11-week trial, the High Court in London heard claims brought by the group – which also included Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish – against ANL of unlawful information gathering.
The rest of the group are Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes.
Lady Lawrence claimed the Daily Mail was “pretending” to support her in getting justice for her son Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993. Her lawyers claim she was “extensively targeted” by private investigators to obtain information, including through corrupt payments to police.
Sir Elton and Mr Furnish alleged 10 articles about them were based on unlawful information gathering, including unlawfully obtained medical information and landline tapping. The couple claimed their son Zachary’s birth certificate was stolen before they received a copy.
Ms Frost claimed that information behind some articles about her had been “hacked from my voicemails”, as they “were word for word” from her messages.
Ms Hurley accused the Daily Mail publisher of stealing her medical records while she was pregnant with her son.
ANL denied the allegations.
14 articles: Harry’s case hinges on stories published between 2001 and 2013
The Duke of Sussex claimed 14 articles published by ANL were based on unlawful information gathering. The stories, his lawyers said, were written between 2001 and 2013, and “focus primarily and in a highly intrusive and damaging way, on the relationships which he formed, or rather tried to form, during those years prior to meeting his now wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex”.
Europe: The Way Back
We're campaigning to rebuild Britain's future in Europe
The articles include one on the decision to name the Duke of Sussex as the godfather to the child of Tiggy Legge-Bourke – his former nanny. According to barrister David Sherborne’s written submissions, only three people were aware of the decision prior to the article being written by Mail on Sunday journalist Katie Nicholl, with nobody in the wider family, including the now King, being informed. Mr Sherborne said there is “no plausibly legitimate source for the information”. ANL said the article was “entirely sourced from legitimate sources”.
Another story was on Harry’s reported relationship with TV presenter Natalie Pinkham. Mr Sherborne said the information reported by Ms Nicholl was only known to an “intimate circle of friends”, and it was “not credible” that she obtained it from a club promoter or a freelance journalist. ANL said the journalist “had several sources who knew both Ms Pinkham and the Duke of Sussex well at the time”.
One story was on Harry’s relationship with his first serious girlfriend, Laura Gerard-Leigh, and their “intentions and habits as a couple”. Harry alleged it was “extraordinary” that the information made its way into the press because of the “privacy he had attached to it and the ‘tiny’ circle of friends who knew”. ANL said the story, written by Ms Nicholl and freelance journalist Andy Buckwell, was partly based on photographs taken of the pair with friends at the Badminton Horse Trials.
40 journalists: Members of the press involved in the trial on behalf of ANL
More than 40 witnesses were involved in the trial on behalf of ANL, including former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who said in his written evidence it was “inconceivable” that anyone at the paper would have carried out the alleged activities.
He later said the claims had had a “deeply upsetting” and sometimes “traumatic” impact on staff at the paper, adding: “I have witnessed the anguish of honest, dedicated journalists who, for three years now, have had an insidious dark shadow hanging over their lives.”
ANL said the claim had been conceived by press reform campaign group Hacked Off, as part of a “political campaign to show that ANL had misled the Leveson Inquiry with a view to putting pressure on the government to implement part two of that inquiry”. Mr Dacre told the court he “emphatically” denied an allegation that he lied to the inquiry into press standards.
Up to £38m: Cost of legal battle
Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, the case has been extremely expensive.
Ahead of the trial, all parties filed their budgets to the court, with the total budget for the claimants £18.7m. The budget for ANL totalled £19.9m.
In a ruling published after a costs management hearing last year, Mr Justice Nicklin and Judge David Cook concluded the sums were “manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate”, and allowed for budgets totalling £4.1m for the claimants and £4.4m for the ANL.
The actual budget could be higher, but the judges’ limits will likely reflect any recovery of costs that could be awarded.
