Prince Harry and Sir Elton John launch legal action against Daily Mail publishers over ‘phone hacking’
The action claims the individuals have been ‘victims of abhorrent criminal activity’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A group of individuals including Prince Harry and Sir Elton John have launched legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper over phone-hacking allegations.
A law firm acting for some members of the group announced the action on Thursday against Associated Newspapers.
The action claims the individuals “have become aware of compelling and highly distressing evidence” they have been “victims of abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy by Associated Newspapers”.
The statement released by law firm Hamlins claims breaches of privacy by the publisher, including placing listening devices inside people’s cars and homes as well as commissioning the bugging of live, private telephone calls.
Also in the group are Baroness Doreen Lawrence, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, the statement added.
Prince Harry and Ms Frost are being represented by Hamlins while Sir Elton and Baroness Lawrence – the mother of murder victim Stephen Lawrence – are represented by gunnercooke.
The allegations include the commissioning of individuals to “surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls whilst they were taking place” and the impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception.
Additional claims include the accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.
“These individuals have been the subject of public interest during the course of their careers and personal lives. They are united in their desire to live in a world where the press operates freely, yet responsibly. A press that represents truth, is sourced in fact and can be trusted to operate ethically and in the interests of the British public,” the statement said.
The publisher, Associated Newspapers, did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.
Prince Harry successfully sued Associated Newspapers in the past, with a judge ruling in July that parts of an article in The Mail On Sunday were defamatory.
And in 2021 he accepted an apology and “substantial damages” over false claims he snubbed the Royal Marines after stepping down as a senior royal.
This summer the Duke of Sussex launched a legal challenge against the Home Office over a decision to withdraw his permanent security team amid “tensions” around his exit from the royal family,
His legal counsel argued the decision was unfair because Prince Harry did not know details of how it was made and was not given the opportunity to make representations to the board involved.
A representative previously said that he wants to bring his children to visit from the US, but he and his family are “unable to return to his home” because it is too dangerous. In February 2020, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (known as Ravec) announced that the duke, his wife and children would no longer be automatically granted police protection on visits to the UK.
The High Court was told that the duke did not know the committee existed, or that members of the royal household were involved, and believed that its decisions were “independent”.
Meghan Markle also won damages following a three-year legal battle against Associated Newspapers for printing parts of a letter to her father.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments