Prince Harry arrived at the High Court this week as lawyers laid out allegations that cut to the heart of Britain’s press culture. The claimants say journalists working for Associated Newspapers paid private investigators millions to dig up private lives, then printed the results as routine coverage. The publisher denies every allegation. The courtroom now has the task of deciding who is telling the truth.
The Articles at the Centre of the Case
At the centre of the case is Prince Harry, back in the High Court accusing British tabloids of unlawful information gathering. His lawyers told the court that articles about his private life relied on phone hacking and private investigators, not routine reporting. They allege Mail titles spent up to three million pounds over several years, treating intrusion as standard practice.
This trial follows earlier successes. In 2023, Harry became the first royal in more than a century to testify when he won damages against Mirror Group Newspapers. Last year, publishers of The Sun settled out of court for a reported eight-figure sum. Now, Harry is suing Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
Associated denies all allegations. Its lawyers say the claims are unsupported, stress that no complaints were made when the articles appeared, and insist journalists relied on legitimate sources. That defence faces close examination as emails, witness statements, and detailed allegations emerge in court.
Private Investigators and the Burrows Trail
Claimants’ barrister David Sherborne focused heavily on private investigator Gavin Burrows, a central figure in the case. Burrows once signed a detailed witness statement describing illegal practices linked to the Mail. He later claimed his signature had been forged.
“Private Investigator Gavin Burrows – who allegedly carried out unlawful information gathering for The Sun and News of the World – has just been named in the High Court in Prince Harry's case” #PrinceHarryVsNGN pic.twitter.com/3jbWSUFcpd
— Dani (@ArchLiliHazMeg) March 20, 2024
Sherborne dismissed that explanation as implausible. He pointed the court to a 2003 Mail newsroom contact list that included Burrows by name. He also produced a public tweet from Burrows posted when the lawsuit was announced. In it, Burrows linked to a Sky News article and wrote that he had assisted the parties bringing the action. Sherborne described the tweet as a clear admission, not a misunderstanding.
The court also heard about invoices, voice actors, and long-running investigator relationships. The claimants say these details show organised activity rather than rogue behaviour.
Flights, Pseudonyms and Blagging Allegations
The hearing then turned to evidence involving Prince Harry’s former girlfriend Chelsy Davy. Claimants’ barrister David Sherborne showed the court emails containing detailed flight information from 2007, including seat numbers, flight times, and travel plans. Harry was travelling under a pseudonym at the time, which Sherborne said made lawful sourcing far more difficult.
The court heard that private investigator Mike Behr allegedly obtained the information and shared it with Daily Mail royal editor Rebecca English. Sherborne argued that no reasonable reader could believe such precise travel data came from a legitimate tip. He said the emails demonstrated awareness of blagging rather than ignorance of it.
A later email exchange from 2013 was also put before the court, in which Behr allegedly shared Prince Harry’s own flight details again. Sherborne told the judge the correspondence spoke for itself.
The hearing also addressed evidence relating to phone-hacking practices. Sherborne referenced Lee Harpin, described in court as the “dauphin of phone hacking,” who is not being called to give evidence by the Mail. Sherborne said Harpin had been regularly used by Mail on Sunday royal correspondent Katie Nicholl, arguing that his absence from the witness box was significant.
In addition, Sherborne referenced the Mail on Sunday’s editorial leadership under Victoria Newton, as the court examined how information gathered by private investigators moved from acquisition to publication. The claimants argue that this evidence points to established newsroom practices rather than isolated misconduct.
Voicemails and the Sadie Frost Evidence
Actress Sadie Frost provided one of the most disturbing witness statements. She said she believes private voicemail messages were used to write stories about her marriage breakdown. She also said deeply private information about a pregnancy termination appeared in print.
If proven, the allegations describe intrusion at its most extreme. The claimants say this reporting did not inform the public. They say it exploited private trauma for headlines.
Related Stories
Why This Trial Breaks New Ground
Why this case differs from Harry’s earlier courtroom wins. Previous actions involved partial admissions by publishers. This time, Associated Newspapers denies everything.
That denial places the burden squarely on the claimants. They must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that unlawful methods produced the stories. The standard is civil, not criminal, but the challenge remains steep. Journalists can protect their sources, and the law guards that principle closely.
The claimants argue that protection ends when sources come from hacking, blagging, or accessing private records. They say press freedom does not include criminal conduct.
Royal Coverage or Sustained Intimidation
For years, royal reporters portrayed their work as routine scrutiny of a public figure. The court now hears a different account. The claimants say this was not sharp reporting but a campaign built on stolen data and private surveillance.
Sherborne also referenced alleged links to known phone-hacking figures, including Lee Harpin, who will not testify in this trial. He suggested that absence carries its own weight. The court will decide whether those inferences hold.
The implications stretch beyond one publisher or one prince. A ruling for the claimants could reshape how far newsrooms can go while shielding their methods from view.
The trial will run for nine weeks, with Harry due to give evidence himself. When judgment comes, it will test the boundary between journalism and intrusion in a way few cases ever have.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.