Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex (right) 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
Prince Harry was driven “paranoid beyond belief” with a “massive strain” left on his personal relationships due to alleged targeting by the publisher of the Daily Mail, the High Court has heard.
The duke , who is taking legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over alleged unlawful information gathering, described the “intrusion” as “terrifying” for loved ones, in extracts of his witness statement provided on the first day of the trial in London.
He told how he felt like his “every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored” and how the alleged actions created “distrust and suspicion” and were “driv(ing) me paranoid beyond belief, isolating me”.
The duke and six other well-known claimants – Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, politician Sir Simon Hughes, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley – all allege ANL, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, had a practice of “clear systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” which spanned two decades.
ANL “vehemently” denies the “preposterous allegations”.
Harry, dressed in a dark suit and tie, travelled from California to London to sit in the courtroom on Monday to listen to the proceedings on the first day of the long-awaited trial, which is expected to last nine weeks.
The group alleges the publisher carried out or commissioned unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations.
Harry was “caused great distress by each and every episode of UIG (unlawful information gathering) against him by Associated or on its behalf, and the fruits of that UIG in the 14 unlawful articles of which he complains”, his barrister David Sherborne said in written submissions.
Mr Sherborne added: “It is evident from the articles and the evidence of the Duke of Sussex that the targeting of him has had a profoundly distressing effect, with episodes of pleaded UIG described as ‘disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it’, ‘intrusion (that) was terrifying’ for loved ones, creating a ‘massive strain’ on personal relationships while invidiously ‘creating distrust and suspicion’ and ‘driv(ing) me paranoid beyond belief, isolating me’.”
Harry’s claim relates to 14 articles, bylined to various journalists but “most prominently Katie Nicholl and Rebecca English” – the latter now the Mail’s Royal Editor.
Among the duke’s allegations are that a private investigator called Mike Behr was commissioned to unlawfully obtain flight details and the seat number of Harry’s then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy for her journey to South Africa, and that he suggested to journalists that they could “plant someone next to her”.
Other articles related to “the intimate family matter” of Harry being chosen as godfather to the child of his former nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke.
Another was about Harry’s “intimate relationship” with presenter Natalie Pinkham, where Harry alleges his “privacy was invaded through the act of gathering information concerning him through UIG”.
In another extract of his witness statement made available on Monday, Harry said: “I find it deeply troubling that Associated used phrases such as ‘sources’, ‘friend’ and the like as a device to hide unlawful information gathering.
“I find it shocking to learn from disclosure that Associated were even using Mike Behr to blag my flight details as late as 2014 for work that he did not even want to put into writing.”
Mail says Harry social circle were ‘good source of leaks’
ANL “strongly denies” that there was any unlawful information gathering, including voicemail interception, directed at the duke or his named associates.
Antony White KC said in written submissions that the articles in the case “were sourced entirely legitimately from information variously provided by contacts of the journalists responsible, including individuals in the Duke of Sussex’s social circle, press officers and publicists, freelance journalists, photographers and prior reports”.
He added: “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 later said that Harry also discussed his private life in the media, and information about his life was also provided by Palace spokespeople.
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.”
Elton John felt ‘violated’ by Mail articles
Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish felt the safety of their children had been “violated” by alleged unlawful news gathering by the Daily Mail’s publisher, the High Court has heard.
On the first day of a nine-week trial on Monday, the court in London was told that the couple also felt “outrage” at the alleged “stealing” of their son Zachary’s birth certificate and medical details after he was born.
The couple allege ten articles about them between 2002 and 2015 were based on unlawful information gathering by ANL.
In written submissions by barrister David Sherborne, he said of Sir Elton and Furnish: “They feel that their home, and the safety of their children and loved ones, has been violated.
“Mr Furnish explains that they are ‘profoundly affected by the uncertainty of not knowing how many times we were targeted… We still don’t know what was really done to us’.
“They are horrified that Associated has used their friendships against them by stealing information through those friends, which Sir Elton describes as ‘the exploitation of love, connection, trust and bonds to find out information shared in confidence’.
“Both Sir Elton and Mr Furnish underline the outrage they feel in light of Associated’s invasion into medical details surrounding the birth of their son Zachary, and the stealing of their son’s birth certificate ‘before we even had a chance to see it ourselves’.”
One of the ten articles that Sir Elton and Furnish claim featured unlawfully gathered information included one published in the Mail On Sunday in May 2007, written by Katie Nicholl, which was headlined “Princes and Palace clash on ‘all-night’ Diana Party”.
Mr Sherborne said in written submissions that the piece contained “exclusive information relating to tensions in the royal household” over plans to hold an event after a memorial concert for Diana, Princess of Wales, which Harry and the now-Prince of Wales hoped that Sir Elton would attend.
He said: “Sir Elton and Mr Furnish have given clear evidence that the relevant information would have been communicated through private, direct conversations between Sir Elton and the Duke of Sussex.
“The Duke of Sussex has also given evidence that the information is private, and that he believes that he and Sir Elton exchanged voicemails regarding the possibility of Sir Elton performing.”
‘No evidence’ for Sir Elton’s allegations against Katie Nicholl
Responding to the claims in written submissions, Antony White KC, for ANL, said: “The article was entirely based on legitimate sources, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
“Ms Nicholl’s evidence is that it is highly likely to have been principally sourced from information provided to her by Lady Elizabeth Anson, who was a first cousin and close confidante of Queen Elizabeth II (who) worked as a party planner.”
He continued: “The claimants’ case appears to be based on no more than inference from the content of the article and Ms Nicholl’s alleged propensity to use or commission unlawful information gathering.
“The allegation, if advanced, is accordingly without any evidential foundation.”
Sir Elton and Furnish followed Monday’s proceedings on a live video-link, while some of their co-claimants were in court.
Mr White also said: “Sir Elton and Mr Furnish, like other claimants, rely on an attempt by members of the research team and the claimants’ legal representatives to link payment records with articles, loosely proximate in time to the payment record, which they claim to believe contain ‘hallmarks’ of unlawful information gathering.
“However, this attempt to substantiate the serious allegations of unlawful information gathering is, as with the same attempts elsewhere in these proceedings, unsupported by any evidence before the court and utterly baseless.”
Prince Harry versus Mail: The private investigators
The Mail publisher is alleged to have spent millions on illegal newsgathering using a number of private investigators. Those named in the case are as follows:
- Detective Danno/Daniel Portley-Hanks
- California-based private investigator, also known as Detective Danno, has told the court ANL paid him for more than 20 years to gather information in a way that was “not legal”.
In his written submissions, barrister David Sherborne includes the words of Mr Portley-Hanks, in which he said ANL “did not want to know where the information came from and sometimes they would complain when I sent them the full report showing exactly what I had done”.
The private investigator told the court he unlawfully obtained social security numbers, unlisted phone numbers, police records, toll records and licence plate data.
In ANL’s written submissions, Antony White KC said Mr Hanks “has himself stated in interviews that he was never asked by any news media to do anything illegal”.
Trace Direct International/Express Locate International also known as Express Locate International (ELI) and BDI UK Consultancy, was a private investigator business which Mr Sherborne alleged ANL used to obtain information unlawfully.
Mr Sherborne said on Monday that this included being commissioned for reports related to the then-home secretary David Blunkett and his “alleged relationship” with estate agent Sally Anderson, including flight details.
The use of the private investigator business for unlawful information-gathering is denied by ANL, with Mr White saying in written submissions that journalists may have used the service lawfully.
Mr White added that while it was “possible” that entries of “SG” in records of payments to ELI referred to reporter Sam Greenhill, the reporter “does not recall using ELI in relation to this article, even to obtain contact information”.
He continued: “The claimants’ weak inferential case must be rejected in the face of clear evidence that these matters were legitimately sourced.”
Jonathan Stafford , described as a “talented voice actor” in court documents, is a private investigator who was allegedly used by ANL as a “blagger”.
Mr Sherborne’s written submissions said an internal aide memo from October 2011 states that Stafford was “known in the features department as a blagger”, with the same memo also saying he was paid £220,144 from 1997 to October 2004 and that he “supplied showbiz tips and did mobile conversions”.
Mr Sherborne claimed that this included monthly invoices for £11,000 and almost £8,000, which he said “demonstrate the clearly unlawful nature of the information he was instructed to obtain”.
The barrister said the work was “far more than merely obtaining an address or a phone number”, given that there was information “freely available” to ANL’s titles on “lawful databases”.
In written submissions, ANL said one journalist had used Mr Stafford to “find addresses and phone numbers rapidly”, but it was “not her understanding that he engaged in any unlawful activities”, with another journalist expected to “firmly deny asking Mr Stafford to carry out unlawful searches”.
Mike Behr , a South Africa-based freelance journalist, was allegedly used by ANL as a private investigator to obtain information about the Duke of Sussex and his ex-girlfriend Chelsea Davy.
Addressing the alleged information gathering by Mr Behr, the duke told the court in written submissions: “I find it shocking to learn from disclosure that Associated were even using Mike Behr to blag my flight details as late as 2014 for work that he did not even want to put into writing.”
Mr Sherborne said one of Mr Behr’s “specialisms”” was obtaining flight information, such as “flight details and even seat numbers”.
The barrister continued that Mr Behr “obtained plainly unlawful information” about the travel details of Ms Davy, which he passed on to ANL journalist, Rebecca English.
ANL said in written submissions that Ms English “strongly denies that she ever used Mr Behr for unlawful information gathering”.
The submissions also state that for one of the articles alleged to be based on unlawful information gathering, “there is nothing in the emails” showing how Mr Behr came across the information – adding that allegations he used “blagging” were “guesswork”.
Lee Harpin , a freelance journalist allegedly used by ANL between 2003 and 2005, was described as the “dauphine of phone hacking” during Mr Sherborne’s opening speech.
Mr Sherborne said Mr Harpin provided information to ANL’s journalists which “bear the clear hallmarks of unlawful information gathering”.
The barrister told the court that Mr Harpin had not been called as a witness by ANL, adding: “The fact that he isn’t, despite still being a serving journalist, tells you everything about how he got the information.”
Mr White said allegations that journalist Katie Nicholl used unlawful information gathering by Mr Harpin as the basis for five articles are “groundless”.
Steve Whittamore has said he was “in no doubt at all” that staff at ANL knew that information he gathered was “obtained through illegal means”, the court was told.
He is accused of unlawful acts including obtaining ex-directory numbers and other private information.
Mr Whittamore also claimed that ANL staff “knew full well I was a practitioner of the dark arts”, Mr Sherborne said, later stating that the email used by Mr Whittamore to invoice the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday was “[email protected]”.
However, Mr White, for ANL, said in written submissions that the publisher had previously stated that it used inquiry agents in the past, but “took steps to end such practices in 2007”.
The court was told that ANL’s journalists did not know or suspect that Mr Whittamore may have been acting illegally.
Mr White continued: “Prior to the ban Mr Whittamore gave repeated assurances to the managing editors at Associated that he was acting lawfully.”
Jonathan Rees , a former police officer and part of Southern Investigations, is accused of obtaining information unlawfully, including through phone tapping.
On Monday, Mr Sherborne shared evidence from former Metropolitan Police officer Derek Haslam, who infiltrated Southern Investigations as an undercover operative, who alleged Mr Rees liked to boast about the information he could access.
This included claiming he could get hold of the medical records belonging to the late Queen – Harry’s grandmother, the court heard.
However, Mr White said in written submissions that the allegation Mr Rees targeted Lady Lawrence is “unfounded”.
He said: “In response to Baroness Lawrence’s claim, Associated has searched for and found no payment records to Mr Burrows, Mr Rees, Southern Investigations or any of their entities.”
The barrister said that many of the claimants’ claims are “dependent upon alleged confessions” made by some private investigators, including Mr Rees.
He continued that no witness statement has been provided and that he “appeared to deny that he had done this” in a recent episode of Channel 4’s Dispatches.
John Ross , a private investigator and former police officer, is alleged to have had an association with “undoubtedly corrupt” police officers, Mr Sherborne has said.
The barrister said Mr Ross was the recipient of an “unlawful” £1,000 payment in November 2001 for an article published in The Mail On Sunday titled “Robbers target Queen’s cousin for second time”.
Mr Sherborne added that there were “no invoices or payment records” for Mr Ross from ANL, “demonstrating that he was paid in cash”.
ANL said the claimants’ allegations about the November 2001 article are “entirely speculative”, adding: “It is possible… that the information came to Mr Ross by way of police gossip but, if it did, there is no reason to believe that it was obtained other than lawfully and no basis for thinking a police officer was paid.”
[ Read all Press Gazette’s coverage of the Prince Harry versus the Mail privacy action ]
Email [email protected] to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog