‘Burglary to order’ allegation thrown out of Prince Harry’s High Court battle with Daily Mail
Publisher’s claim Daily Mail A High Court judge has ruled that “commissioned theft” will not be part of the legal battle waged by a group of stars, including Prince Harry.
The Duke of Sussex is one of a group of seven high-profile individuals to take legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over alleged illegal information collection.
The group, which includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Liz Hurley, accused the broadcaster of illegal activities such as hiring private detectives to plant listening devices inside cars, “spoofing” private recordings and accessing private phone conversations.
ANL firmly denies the allegations and has defended the legal action, having previously described the allegations as “appalling” and “completely implausible”.
At a preliminary hearing earlier this month, the band’s lawyers and the publisher returned to the High Court in London ahead of a hearing expected in January 2026.
Antony White KC on behalf of ANL, two persons mail on sunday Journalists burglarized the home of former businessman Michael Ward in 1992 and stole documents released before the trial.
In Friday’s judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin agreed.
“Even if proven true, they cannot assist in a fair resolution of plaintiffs’ claims. This incident is not alleged to have any connection with any plaintiffs or any alleged journalists.”
In his 16-page ruling, the judge said the 30-year-old allegation had become a “serious dispute of fact”.
“I am confident that the costs and resources devoted to resolving the actual dispute would be disproportionate to any potential evidentiary value,” he continued.
“Frankly, it has become a complex and involved sideshow.”
It also ruled that it was not necessary to determine whether the illegal collection of information was widespread or habitual to resolve the allegations.
The judge said he would exclude “relevant and non-evidentiary” allegations from the hearing and prevent the case from turning into “an uncontrolled and wide-ranging investigation similar to a public inquiry.”
However, it is understood that lawyers representing the group of seven people, including David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes, will appeal on the grounds that Judge Nicklin’s decision is wrong in fact and law.
During a two-day hearing attended by Prince Harry via video link earlier this month, celebrity lawyer David Sherborne claimed that his 21st birthday party could be targeted by private detectives, dragging the Prince of Wales into a legal battle.
He claimed an invoice linked to a June 2003 news story containing “extensive” details of William’s “out of Africa” themed party was likely obtained by bragging rights.
“It can be inferred that the information relating to the article was obtained through accusation,” Mr Sherborne said in written submissions.
Mr Sherborne also told the court that a recording from a different private investigator showed a journalist had commissioned him to provide a “mobile phone conversion” relating to the Princess of Wales and phone numbers from a list of “family and friends”.
However, Antony White KC, for ANL, argued that the claim contained “entirely vague” allegations of unlawful information gathering (UIG) which should not be prosecuted.
Another preliminary hearing is expected to be held next month.
