Duke of Sussex could give evidence on Wednesday in trial against Mail publisher
Harry was originally due to give evidence on Thursday in the trial of his claim against Associated Newspapers Limited.
The Duke of Sussex could begin giving evidence in the trial of his legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail on Wednesday, the High Court has heard.
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.
This includes claims that information for articles was obtained by carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as phone tapping and “blagging” private records.
ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims.
Harry attended court on Monday and the start of proceedings on Tuesday, but was seen leaving the Royal Courts of Justice in London during the lunch break.
He was initially scheduled to give evidence on Thursday, but opening submissions for the claimants and ANL concluded earlier than expected on Tuesday.
David Sherborne, representing the group, said he would “endeavour to have the Duke of Sussex here at 2pm tomorrow”.
He said: “I will do my best and we will notify the court and the defendant.”
In response to a question from the judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, about whether Harry could be available to give evidence on Wednesday morning, Mr Sherborne responded that he needed to “make inquiries”.
The trial will resume at 10.30am on Wednesday.
In court on Tuesday, Antony White KC, for ANL, said that the claims against it were “threadbare” and had been brought too late.
He continued that journalists at the organisation provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing” of the more than 50 articles that are alleged to be the products of unlawful information gathering.
Mr White also told the court that payments to private investigators by journalists, cited by the claimants, were “examples of clutching at straws in the wind and seeking to bind them together in a way that has no proper analytical foundation”.
He added that claims made in a “disavowed” witness statement allegedly given by one private investigator named in the case, Gavin Burrows, including that he received large sums of money from the publisher, were “inherently implausible”.
The barrister said: “Associated is not a corner shop. It is audited. Auditors usually do not miss the haemorrhaging of large amounts of cash of this size.”
In written submissions, Mr White said the publisher “strongly denies” that there was any unlawful information gathering, including voicemail interception, directed at the duke.
He continued that the articles “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”.
Earlier on Tuesday, David Sherborne, for the group, said that Harry feels he has “endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him” because he “had the temerity to stand up” to ANL.
He said: “In his witness statement for the trial, the Duke of Sussex speaks of the impact which this has had on him – the distress, the paranoia and the other feelings that it generated.
“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 continued that the 14 articles involved in Harry’s claim, 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 also said that “smoke and mirrors” and “carefully orchestrated attacks” on the claimants could not “save Associated this time”.
He said: “It is not the claim for damages that brings these claimants here.
“It is the uncovering of the truth of what was done to them, and Associated taking accountability for that.”
The barrister continued that while the defence that the claims have been brought too late is a “potential life raft in a sea of unlawful information gathering”, the publisher may not “be able to climb aboard” as all of the claims were brought in time.
The trial is due to conclude in March, with a judgment due in writing at a later date.
