Duke of Sussex returns to court for second day of trial against Mail publisher

The Duke of Sussex has returned to a London court for the second day of the trial of his legal claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

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 claims of unlawful information gathering.

The duke, 41, attended the first day of the trial on Monday and returned to the Royal Courts of Justice in London at around 10.07am on Tuesday ahead of the hearing resuming at 10.30am before Mr Justice Nicklin.

He waved at the assembled reporters as he walked into the building.

He is due to give evidence on Thursday as part of a trial which is due to last nine weeks.

The group, many of whom also attended court on Monday, claims that 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.

ANL, which also publishes the Mail on Sunday, has strongly denied wrongdoing.

Opening the trial on Monday, David Sherborne, for the group, said that ANL “knew they had skeletons in their closet” when they emphatically denied all claims of unlawful practices, and instead had a “culture of unlawful information gathering that wrecked the lives of so many”.

In written submissions, the barrister said the alleged unlawful information gathering in the duke’s case is related to 14 articles between 2001 and 2013.

He continued that ANL’s methods of information-gathering left the duke “paranoid beyond belief” and created a “massive strain” on personal relationships.

The barrister added: “The Duke of Sussex has been caused great distress by each and every episode of unlawful information gathering against him by Associated or on its behalf, and the fruits of that unlawful information gathering in the 14 unlawful articles of which he complains.”

The submissions also include Harry’s words, which say: “I find it deeply troubling that Associated used phrases such as ‘sources’, ‘friends’ and the like as a device to hide unlawful information gathering.”

In response to Harry’s claims, Antony White KC, for ANL, said in written submissions: “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 said the duke had discussed his private life in the media, while information about his life was also provided by palace spokespeople.

The barrister also claimed it was “a striking feature of the case that none of the articles was the subject of complaint by the claimants at the time of publication”.

He said: “In relation to almost every article alleged to be the product of phone hacking or phone tapping, Associated is able to call a witness or witnesses to explain how the article was in fact sourced.

“The claimants’ inferential case of phone hacking and phone tapping is met and convincingly rebutted.

“The pattern of misconduct the claimants seek to establish is simply not made out.”