Prince Harry and others ‘clutching at straws in the wind’ with claims against Daily Mail publisher, court told

Prince Harry’s legal claim that Daily Mail journalists paid private detectives to hack into celebrities’ phones was compared to ‘catching at straws in the wind’ yesterday.

Lawyers for Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday (TMOS), have said the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and six other high-profile claimants has ‘not been sustained’.

The newspaper group denies the allegations, saying allegations of hacking, landline tapping and other illegal information gathering are ‘implausible’ and ‘complete lies’.

The seven plaintiffs – Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes and actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost – claim they were targeted by the newspapers.

But Associated’s Antony White KC told the Supreme Court they would present evidence that journalists used legitimate sources to gather information.

In one example, in a 1997 front-page article announcing that the Government would launch a public inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the information was given to the editor of the Daily Mail by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw.

Other reports at the heart of the legal process were said to have been obtained from Sir Elton’s own publisher and Harry’s Press secretary.

Model Elizabeth Hurley is seen outside the Royal Courts of Justice with her son Damian, where they joined Prince Harry to observe the second day of the trial.

David Sherborne, the barrister representing the duke, Ms Hurley and five other plaintiffs: Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Sir Simon Hughes and Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Mr White said some of the plaintiffs had ‘leaker’ friends who would speak to journalists, including from Harry’s social circle.

The lawyer said the evidence collected from the journalists named in the case, many of whom will testify in the High Court, provided ‘a convincing explanation of the pattern of legitimate sourcing of the articles’.

In written legal submissions submitted to the court, Mr White said: ‘The plaintiffs’ inferential claim of phone hacking and wiretapping has been met and convincingly rebutted.

‘The pattern of abuse that plaintiffs seek to establish has not been clearly established.’

Mr White said the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove their allegations and that documents showing payments from newspapers to private detectives did not prove that journalists had engaged in the illegal gathering of information.

He told the court that plaintiffs’ reliance on such documents in their legal cases were ‘examples of hanging on to the wind at straws and trying to tie them together without a proper analytical basis’.

A court sketch drawn on Monday showing Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, Elizabeth Hurley and son Damian watching David Sherborne as he outlines the case

Paul Dacre, then editor of the Daily Mail, told the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 in evidence that the newspaper had used ‘investigative agents’ until 2007, when its use was banned, but a major internal investigation found no phone hacking at Associated.

Mr White said dozens of journalists would present evidence to refute the claims of the Duke of Sussex and other claimants.

He said: ‘From top to bottom, Associated’s editors, desk heads and journalists, many of whom have been with the company for many years, even decades, are lining up to deny the plaintiffs’ allegations of routine and widespread wiretapping, wiretapping and accusations within the organisation, and to acknowledge the use of TPIs (third party investigators) where appropriate to obtain information before April 2007, when their use was largely banned.’

Mr White said the ‘only direct evidence’ of phone hacking and landline tapping came from private investigator Gavin Burrows, who said the ‘witness statement’ submitted by the plaintiffs’ legal team was not written by him and that the signature on it was forged.

Prince Harry will be the first witness called to give evidence and could take the witness stand today.

He was in court yesterday to hear his lawyer David Sherborne outline the plaintiffs’ case but left at lunch. Ms Hurley and her son Damian also left the field after the morning session.

Mr Sherborne said he felt the Duke of Sussex had ‘endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him for daring to stand up to the Associated’.

The lawyer told the court that the plaintiffs would seek ‘significant’ compensation if they win the case. Legal costs are estimated at £38.8 million.

Mr Sherborne said: ‘It is not claims for damages that bring these plaintiffs here.

‘This is about revealing the truth about what was done to them and for Associated to take responsibility for it.’

The case continues.