On Monday, the publisher of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers, and seven well-known figures—Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, and Simon Hughes—started a high-stakes judicial battle. Prince Harry and Elton John both appeared in court for the first hearing of the explosive action against the media outlet, which was brought last year, at London’s High Court.
In its efforts to collect dirt on high-profile persons, Associated Newspapers was accused of “abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy,” according to the explosive complaint.
The claimants contend that unlawful information collecting took place between 1993 and 2018 over a 25-year period at the hands of Associated Newspapers, one of Britain’s largest newspaper publishers and owner of the Daily Mail and the Mail. They are said to have bugged their victims’ phone calls, installed listening devices in their houses and cars, and paid police officers for information.
The claimants’ attorneys have also claimed in the lawsuit that the publisher hired private investigators to illegally gather information on individuals and their ” even commissioned breaking and entry into their private properties”.
The publisher, however, vehemently refutes all of the accusations, claiming that the complainants waited “too long” to file a lawsuit. The publisher called the allegations “preposterous smears” and claimed it “utterly and unambiguously refuted” them when the lawsuit was first filed.
Associated Newspapers also indicated in a recent interview that the claimants are primarily relying on evidence handed to the Leveson inquiry into the British media business on a confidential basis by the Mail.
A representative for Associated Newspapers told Reuters on Monday, “While Mail’s admiration for [Doreen] Lawrence remains undimmed, we are profoundly saddened that she has been persuaded to bring this case.”
The spokesperson added, “The Mail remains hugely proud of its pivotal role in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence. Its famous ‘Murderers’ front page triggered the Macpherson report.”
Doreen Lawrence, one of the most prominent claimants in the action, is the mother of Stephen Lawrence, a Black teenager who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993. The Daily Mail’s coverage of Stephen’s heinous murder has been cited as an example of excellent newspaper journalism. Their reportage aided the Lawrence family in bringing Stephen’s murderers to justice.
The spokesperson further stated in the statement that one of the private investigators identified by Doreen has already produced a sworn statement stating that he never performed any illegal work for the Daily Mail or Mail.
What exactly are the allegations?
Although the seven claimants’ claims are being handled collectively, each has made separate charges of criminal behavior against the publisher.
Doreen Lawrence, a long-time supporter of the Daily Mail and its former editor Paul Dacre, has made some damaging claims against the paper. She now claims that the news agency hired private investigators to dig up dirt on her while the publication openly campaigned to find her son’s killers.
Lawrence also claims that Daily Mail reporters directed private investigators to illegally intercept her voicemail messages, tap her landline, “blag” personal records, monitor her bank accounts and phone bills, conduct covert electronic surveillance, and make corrupt payments to serving Metropolitan police officers working on the murder investigations.
She has also identified four “illegal items” that she alleges could not have been published without “the direct misuse or exploitation of material obtained unlawfully or criminally.” According to Doreen, the activities detailed in the case “reflect merely a portion of the entirety of the separate unlawful acts perpetrated in respect to her and her colleagues.”
The lawsuit stated, “The claimant [Doreen] feels anger, shock, and upset, upon learning that the Daily Mail targeted her through the unlawful acts and exploited her and her son’s murder through the unlawful articles, all of which was deliberately concealed from her both at the time and subsequently. Most of all, however, she feels a deep sense of betrayal. She finds it hard to believe the level of duplicity and manipulation that was clearly at play, knowing now as she does that the Daily Mail’s outward support for her fight to bring Stephen’s killers to justice was hollow, and worse, entirely false.”
“The claimant now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers, and profit. The claimant cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason. She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool,” it further stated.
Prince Harry claims that the publication used illegally obtained material for a series of articles about his personal life
In the explosive complaint, Prince Harry claims that the publication used illegally obtained material for a series of articles about his personal life, including details about his relationships with ex-girlfriends Chelsy Davy, Natalie Pinkham, and Cressida Bonas. He also accused the publication of acquiring information concerning discussions he and his brother, Prince William, had about how to handle the release of deathbed photos of their mother, Princess Diana.
According to Harry, the illegal behavior he engaged in to collect these stories “essentially deprived him of important portions of his teenage years.” He claims to have lost friends and that everyone in his life has become a “suspect.”
He goes on to say that the reports were presented in such a way that he was led to assume that persons close to him were leaking information to the publication, rather than the suspected use of unlawful reporting practices.
The Duke of Sussex also claims that the publisher continuously leaked information about his private travel arrangements, posing a “serious security risk” and a “grave violation” of the British media’s vows to reform its conduct following Princess Diana’s death in 1997.
Despite the publication’s claim to be a “beacon of truth and honesty,” Harry believes the corporation “widely and regularly carried out or commissioned improper or unlawful information gathering practices” to report on some of his most private moments.
What comes next?
Associated Newspapers wants the cases dismissed because they were filed too late. It is now up to the judge to decide whether the case will proceed or be dismissed, as Associated Papers has requested. The first of four days of pre-trial hearings began on Monday and are set to end on Thursday.
The appearance of Prince Harry and Elton John in court, which was done solely on their initiative and was not legally required, has sparked enormous media coverage, drawing millions of eyes to the preliminary hearing. A representative for Prince Harry told Reuters that the Duke of Sussex wants to attend the court to show public support for the issue. It is yet unknown whether or not this case will have far-reaching effects. Yet, if it goes to trial, it is safe to say that it will garner worldwide attention.
