Prince Harry v Daily Mail live: Duke of Sussex testifies in court | Media
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.
Key events
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.”
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.
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”.
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:
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.
