Prince Harry has joined with Doreen Lawrence and five other high-profile individuals in bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. They allege the newspapers engaged in various illegal activities in order to obtain information for use in news stories.
How did the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday allegedly break the law?
The seven individuals allege many forms of illegal information gathering were carried out on behalf of the Mail or Mail on Sunday.
The allegations of illegal behaviour include voicemail interception, the tapping of landline telephones, the blagging of private medical records by pretending to be the individual in question, and even commissioning breaking and entry into private property.
Most of the allegations suggest the illegal behaviour was carried out by external private investigators instructed by journalists at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, rather than by reporters directly employed by the newspapers.
What are the specific allegations?
Each of the individuals is making similar but separate allegations of illegal behaviour by Associated Newspapers. Harry says they obtained information resulting in articles on his personal life, including details of his relationship and feelings towards ex-girlfriends. Doreen Lawrence alleges the Daily Mail hired private investigators to hack her phone and obtain information on her murdered son. Elton John claims that the newspaper obtained a copy of his child’s birth certificate before he had seen it. Sadie Forst alleges landline calls were intercepted and used as the basis of news stories. The full list of allegations is extensive.
When did all this allegedly take place?
The claims of illegal behaviour mainly cover a period from 1993 to 2011. During this time Paul Dacre, who is in line for a peerage in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list, was editor of the Daily Mail. He has always denied that his newspaper engaged in illegal activity. Associated Newspapers has called the allegations “preposterous smears”.
If the alleged crimes took place in the 1990s and 2000s, why is the legal case only happening now?
According to the claimants, they only recently learned they may be victims of illegal information gathering by individuals working for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. They argue they could not have brought the case earlier because they did not know they were potentially victims.
The cases are being heard in a civil court, rather than a criminal court, because the cases have been brought by the alleged victims rather than a prosecution by the state after a police investigation.
Isn’t phone hacking old news?
It’s more than a decade since the Guardian reported on the widespread use of phone hacking at the News of the World, leading to the closure of the Sunday tabloid. This resulted in the Leveson inquiry into press ethics and a series of court cases against Rupert Murdoch’s News UK and the parent company of the Daily Mirror. Collectively those two newspaper groups have paid out hundreds of millions of pounds in damages and legal fees to people whose phones were hacked.
Although phone hacking has largely faded from public consciousness, hundreds of cases continue to work their way through the court system, including several against the Sun.
Associated Newspapers has always denied that it engaged in illegal reporting tactics, with Dacre giving an assurance under oath to the Leveson inquiry to that effect. Until now the company has largely escaped the expensive and reputationally damaging court cases that have dogged its tabloid newspaper rivals over the last two decades.
What is the importance of this week’s court hearing?
Harry and the other individuals bringing the cases against the Mail filed their legal claims at the start of October but it has taken five months for them to reach court. This week’s hearing is not a full trial with witnesses.
Instead, it is a preliminary hearing where the Mail’s lawyers are attempting to stop the cases progressing any further – essentially asking a judge to chuck out the case at an early stage and avoid a very public and messy trial where lots of evidence would be disclosed.
Why has a preliminary hearing attracted so much media attention?
The prominent individuals have purposefully used their celebrity status to attract attention to the case. Harry flew in from the US to attend the technical legal hearing, causing the world’s media to cover it. Sadie Frost, Elton John, David Furnish and Doreen Lawrence also attended the first day of the hearing.
Why is the Mail’s parent company invoking the Human Rights Act?
Associated Newspapers successfully asked a judge to stop other media outlets from naming 73 journalists who are named in the legal claims. All the individuals work – or used to work – for the company’s newspapers. The legal argument was, in part, based on the Human Rights Act’s guarantee of the right to a fair trial – a piece of legislation that the Daily Mail has often criticised in its newspapers.
The judge agreed with Associated Newspapers that it would be unfair to release the names of the journalists at this stage because they may be unable to offer up a defence if the case does not go to trial.
How are the Daily Mail’s lawyers trying to get the case thrown out before trial?
Associated Newspapers is objecting to the cases on two grounds.
First, it alleges that the claims are largely based on material that was provided in confidence to the Leveson inquiry back in 2011. These documents, setting out payments by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday to private investigators, were then leaked to a news website, which in turn passed it to the lawyers bringing the cases against Associated Newspapers.
Associated Newspapers claims that the material provided to the Leveson inquiry is subject to a legal order, which means it has to remain confidential. The claimants feel otherwise and want to use the material.
Second, Associated Newspapers argues that Harry and the other individuals have waited too long to bring the claims. Individuals have six years after learning they are potential victims to file a case. Associated Newspapers says that Harry and the other claimants only began proceedings in October 2022 but must have all had a reasonable suspicion that they were potential victims of illegal behaviour by Associated Newspapers prior to 2016, meaning they missed the six-year deadline.
In the words of the Mail publisher’s lawyers, the cases are therefore “stale” and should be stopped from going to trial.
