Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex arrives at the Royal Courts Of Justice in London on Monday 19 January 2026 for the start of his trial with six other claimants against Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers. Picture: Jonathan Brady/PA Wire
The claim that the publisher of the Daily Mail commissioned burglary in order to invade the privacy of Baroness Doreen Lawrence was struck out.
It was the most serious allegation to be heard in a privacy trial pitting Baroness Lawrence, Sir Elton John, Prince Harry , Sadie Frost, David Furnish and Sir Simon Hughes against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
On day one of the trial on Monday, Associated Newspapers put forward a 458-page defence which begins by warning that its case has been hindered by “inexcusably late disclosure” on Monday and Tuesday last week of “highly damaging documents” by the Harry legal team.
It says it is a “striking feature” of the case that none of the articles which are the subject of privacy complaints dating back up to 30 years were complained about at time of publication.
The publisher contends that the claims began not with the claimants themselves, but with the legal research team led by Graham Johnson and Evan Harris.
An email sent by Harris to Johnson in 2016, quoted by the Mail, described the latter’s role as “contacting victims to persuade them to instruct lawyers to sue the arse off the Mail”.
Associated said the burglary claim was struck out by the judge because it was “hopeless”.
It said it will rely on 40 witnesses, starting with editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, to prove that none of the complained-about articles were a result of illegal newsgathering.
It further argues that all the claims should be statute-barred, coming more than six years after the alleged invasions of privacy happened.
The other claims against the Mail relate to phone hacking, phone tapping and blagging (obtaining private information by deception).
Associated says the only direct evidence of hacking and tapping come from a statement made by private investigator Gavin Burrows on 16 August 2021 which he has now disavowed.
It said the statement purports to have been taken by solicitor Anjlee Sangani. But after asking her to confirm its authenticity, Associated was informed in November that Sangani was no longer representing Lawrence, Hurley, Sir Elton and Furnish and had in fact “moved abroad for personal and professional reasons”.
Associated notes that Sangani’s signature confirmed the statement was prepared in accordance with legal rules which include: no leading questions, no pressure of any kind and that it be prepared by a lawyer.
Associated contends that the statement was not taken by Sangani but by Graham Johnson and drafted on the basis of notes he made at various meetings.
It said: “Ms Sangani was not present when the 16 August 2021 statement was signed. It is clear she has no direct knowledge of whether or how this was done.”
Associated says the other allegations around hacking and tapping are “wholly inferential” and based on looking at payment records to private investigators which appeared closely in time to the complained-about articles.
The Mail called this “guesswork” and said in fact articles came from legitimate sources who in some cases were encouraged by the claimants themselves to speak to the press.
Associated also says there is no basis for assuming all payments to private investigators are related to illegal newsgathering.
It says in almost every case it will call witnesses to explain how the complained-about articles were legally sourced.
Associated says that complaints about blagging were widely aired around the time of the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 to 2012, meaning this final category of claims is outside the six-year time limit.
The privacy trial will consider 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015, with most dating from the 2000s.
Associated said: “Not every journalist can remember every article on which they were bylined, but they can all confirm that the articles were not the product of UIG [unlawful information gathering].”
Meanwhile, the claimants say in their skeleton argument that there is “compelling evidence” that “journalists and executives across the Mail titles engage in or were complicit in a culture of unlawful information gathering that wrecked the lives of so many”.
They cite a managing editor who “signed off hundreds of invoices for work that bear the hallmarks of UIG, including for indisputable voicemail interception of Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes”.
They say one journalist obtained information about the termination of a pregnancy by Sadie Frost (something even her mother did not know about) and another obtained the exact plane seats, flight times and travel plans of Prince Harry’s ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.
Other journalists are accused of using blaggers to obtain information on private bank accounts and financial transactions.
The Prince Harry legal team contends that Mail journalists spent more than £3m with private investigators who were used to obtain information illegally during the period the claims relate to.
Email [email protected] to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog