Harry faced ‘campaign of attacks’ for standing up to Mail publisher, court told

The Duke of Sussex feels like he has faced a “sustained campaign of attacks” because he “had the temerity to stand up to” the Daily Mail’s publisher, the High Court has been told.

Harry, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, politician Sir Simon Hughes, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley are all bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

ANL, which also publishes The Mail On Sunday, has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims, with the publisher due to begin its opening speech on Tuesday afternoon.

Harry attended the second day of the trial in London on Tuesday, sitting behind his lawyers and Ms Hurley in the large courtroom.

Summarising part of the duke’s written evidence at the start of the hearing, his barrister David Sherborne said that Harry had detailed the “distress” and “paranoia” he had been caused.

Mr Sherborne continued: “But given what we’ve seen, is it any wonder that he feels that way, or as he explains, that he feels he has endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him for having had the temerity to stand up to Associated in the way that he has so publicly done.”

The barrister later said there were 14 articles in Harry’s claim, “which feature, what we say are, the hallmarks of unlawful information gathering”.

ANL “strongly denies” that there was any unlawful information gathering, including voicemail interception, directed at the duke or his named associates.

Mr Sherborne told the court the articles, written between 2001 and 2013, “focus primarily and in a highly intrusive and damaging way, on the relationships which he formed, or rather tried to form, during those years prior to meeting his now wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex”.

He continued: “Tracking his movements and those around him, as we see, with the potentially serious security implications, which go without saying.”

In extracts of Harry’s written evidence made available on Monday, the duke said it is “disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked” so the publisher of the Daily Mail could “make money out of it”.

In response to Harry’s claims, ANL’s lawyer Antony White KC told the court in written submissions: “At all material times, the Duke of Sussex’s social circle was and was known to be a good source of leaks or disclosure of information to the media about what he got up to in his private life.”

Mr White said the duke had discussed his private life in the media, while information about his life was also provided by Palace spokespeople.

The barrister also said it was “a striking feature of the case that none of the articles were the subject of complaint by the claimants at the time of publication”.

He said: “In relation to almost every article alleged to be the product of phone hacking or phone tapping, Associated is able to call a witness or witnesses to explain how the article was in fact sourced.

“The claimants’ inferential case of phone hacking and phone tapping is met and convincingly rebutted.

“The pattern of misconduct the claimants seek to establish is simply not made out.”

The barrister continued in written submissions: “From the top down, Associated’s editors, desk heads and journalists, many of whom have worked at the company for many years and even decades, are lining up to reject the claimants’ allegations of habitual and widespread phone hacking, phone tapping and blagging within the organisation, whilst acknowledging where appropriate the use of TPIs (third party investigators) to obtain information prior to April 2007 when their use was largely banned.”

The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in nine weeks with a judgment in writing at a later date.