Prince Harry, Elton John and five others begin privacy trial against Daily Mail
Seven high-profile claimants, including Prince Harry and Elton John, say Daily Mail journalists commissioned private investigators who used unlawful methods between 1993 and 2011.
Copy link
By Torontoer Staff
A High Court trial opened in London on Monday as seven public figures, led by Prince Harry and Elton John, press privacy claims against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The claimants allege journalists commissioned private investigators who used unlawful methods between 1993 and 2011 to obtain personal information.
The case, launched in 2022, raises questions about press practice, accountability and whether some claims are out of time under limitation rules. The proceedings will test evidence from former investigators, senior journalists and the claimants themselves.
Who is suing
- Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex
- Elton John, singer
- David Furnish, Elton John’s husband
- Liz Hurley, actor and model
- Sadie Frost, actor
- Doreen Lawrence, campaigner
- Simon Hughes, former MP
The core allegations
The seven claim that journalists working for or on behalf of the Mail titles hired private investigators who engaged in illegal activity. Alleged methods include voicemail interception, tapping landlines and obtaining confidential information through deception, a practice known as blagging. The claimants say those techniques were used to gather details such as flight movements and medical records.
Associated disputes the allegations. The publisher has called the claims "preposterous smears" and told the court that the social circles of the claimants were "leaky", meaning information regularly reached the press via friends or associates.
Procedural background
Judge Matthew Nicklin decided in November 2023 that the group’s claims should proceed to trial, rejecting Associated’s argument that many claims were barred by a six-year time limit. The claimants were also granted permission to rely on material from the 2011–12 Leveson public inquiry into press standards, subject to limits.
In October, the judge restricted aspects of the case, ruling that allegations involving the Princess of Wales could not be used, and narrowing the proceedings to specific articles and events rather than a broad inquiry into industry conduct.
What will happen at trial
All seven claimants are expected to give evidence and face cross-examination by Associated’s lawyers. Elton John and David Furnish are likely to give testimony remotely. Prince Harry is due to appear in the witness box; he previously gave evidence in a separate phone-hacking case in 2023.
Associated intends to call current and former editors and senior journalists. Paul Dacre, the Mail’s long-serving former editor who now serves as editor-in-chief of DMG Media, is expected to be among the first witnesses for the publisher.
Key legal issues
The trial will concentrate on two main questions: did investigators acting for the Mail titles use unlawful means to obtain personal information, and did the claimants know, or ought they to have known, that those unlawful acts had taken place more than six years before they issued proceedings.
Associated has sought to frame the litigation as part of an organised campaign funded by critics of the tabloid press, naming public figures such as Hugh Grant and the late Max Mosley as having been involved in earlier efforts to hold newspapers to account. The publisher says some claims should fail on limitation grounds and that articles were lawfully sourced.
They gave sworn evidence at the public inquiry that they were a "clean ship," but they are now running a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil defence,"
David Sherborne, lawyer for the claimants
Claimants’ lawyers say Associated spent more than 3 million pounds on private investigators over about 20 years, and that missing or destroyed documents allow an inferential case to be drawn. Associated denies wrongdoing and rejects suggestions of document destruction.
The role of private investigator Gavin Burrows
A central factual dispute concerns witness statements from investigator Gavin Burrows. In August 2021 he provided a statement to the claimants saying his work for Associated included bugging landlines. He later issued declarations to Associated’s lawyers denying those allegations, saying he believed his earlier statement had been prepared by others and was "substantially untrue", and alleging his signature had been forged.
Associated says much of the case depends on Burrows’ credibility and argues that without his testimony many of the allegations would collapse. The judge will have to decide how to treat inconsistent accounts and which inferences can reasonably be drawn.
What is at stake
A ruling for the claimants could result in compensation, reputational damage for the publisher and further scrutiny of tabloid practices. A ruling for Associated could limit the reach of similar historic claims and bolster arguments about the reliability of long-delayed allegations. The trial will not resolve every question about press standards, but it will probe the boundaries between investigative journalism and unlawful intrusion.
The judge will weigh witness credibility, documentary gaps and legal time limits. The hearing is expected to run for several weeks, and its outcome may shape future litigation and public debate about privacy and the national press.
privacyPrince HarryElton JohnDaily Mailphone-hackingUK courts
