Daily Mail: Prince Harry left with 'suspicion and paranoia' after alleged gross privacy breaches by publisher

The Duke of Sussex has made his first return trip to the UK since the Queen's funeral, appearing at a High Court hearing in London where the Daily Mail’s publisher is trying to get claims of illegal information gathering thrown out of court.

Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has brought a bid to end High Court claims brought by a group - including Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence - over allegations which include hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes, and recording private phone conversations.

The group of high-profile individuals, which also include Sir Elton’s husband David Furnish and actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, announced in October they were bringing claims for misuse of private information against ANL.

Their lawyers said at the time the group had “become aware of compelling and highly distressing evidence that they have been the victims of abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy” by ANL, which also publishes of The Mail On Sunday and MailOnline.

Prince Harry arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the start of the four-day hearing on Monday (27 March), sitting towards the back of the courtroom and occasionally taking notes in a small black notebook. Ahead of the start of the afternoon session of the hearing, Sir Elton was also seen arriving at the central London court.

ANL’s lawyers argue that the claims should be dismissed without a trial. Adrian Beltrami KC said in written submissions that the legal actions had been brought too late, and were “stale”.

The barrister said the individuals had to prove they did not know earlier, or could not have discovered earlier, they may have been able to bring a claim against ANL for alleged misuse of their private information.

Beltrami said after a number of high-profile criminal and civil proceedings over phone hacking, “it would be surprising indeed for any reasonably informed member of the public, let alone a figure in the public eye, to have been unaware of these matters”.

“The claimants have failed to show that they have a real prospect of discharging their burden at trial and the court should not hesitate to dismiss these stale claims at an early stage, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a considerable waste of time, costs and the court’s resources," he continued.

David Sherborne, speaking for the group, said the unlawful acts in the claim include commissioning the “breaking and entry into private property”, illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening to live landline calls and obtaining medical records.

He said in written submissions: “The claimants each claim that in different ways they were the victim of numerous unlawful acts carried out by the defendant, or by those acting on the instructions of its newspapers.

“They range through a period from 1993 to 2011, even continuing beyond until 2018,” the barrister added.

A spokesperson for ANL previously said the allegations were “unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims, based on no credible evidence”. Beltrami said that Harry “does not offer any reason why he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the basis for his inferential claim against Associated before October 2016”.

Quoting from documents filed on Harry’s behalf, Beltrami said in written arguments that the Duke’s case was that “suspicion and paranoia was caused by Associated’s publication of the unlawful articles. Friends were lost or cut off as a result and everyone became a suspect, since he was misled by the way that the articles were written into believing that those close to him were the source of this information being provided to Associated’s newspapers”.

“He stated that the repeated, wrongful disclosures… had a serious and profound effect upon (him) at the time of their publication, and that he had ‘painful memories… regarding the extent to which ANL publicised private and sensitive information relating to his private and family life.”

The hearing, before Justice Nicklin, is due to conclude on Thursday.