Liz Hurley Claims Daily Mail Tapped Her Landlines in Privacy Trial With Prince Harry

Elizabeth Hurley arrived at the High Court today as part of one of the most significant privacy cases to confront the British press in a generation. Giving evidence as part of a group claim alongside other high-profile claimants against Associated Newspapers Limited, the actor described what she believes was years of covert surveillance by the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Her testimony followed days of evidence from Prince Harry, placing Hurley’s account inside a broader legal challenge that alleges systematic intrusion, not isolated misconduct. ANL denies all allegations and says the claims are unsupported and out of time.

Her appearance was emotional, confrontational, and unusually direct. It also exposed how difficult it is to prove crimes designed never to be discovered.

What the Court Heard From Elizabeth Hurley

Hurley told the court that she believes journalists unlawfully tapped her home landlines, recorded live phone calls, and planted microphones around her home, including on the windowsill of her dining room. She also alleged that private medical information was obtained while she was pregnant with her son Damian. These claims relate to coverage published between 2002 and 2011.

“There were microphones on the windowsill of my dining room,” Hurley said. She added that while leaks existed, “they were not from my friends,” and said the discovery of landline tapping “devastated” her. Above all, it was the discovery that the Mail had tapped the landlines of my home phones and tape-recorded my live telephone conversations that devastated me. I felt crushed.” – Liz Hurley, The Guardian

In her witness statement, Hurley described the discovery of landline tapping as devastating and said it left her feeling crushed. She drew a clear distinction between voicemail interception and the idea of someone listening to every call inside her home. That distinction matters because it speaks to scale, intent, and intrusion.

Associated Newspapers denies all allegations. Its legal team argues the stories came from lawful sources, public interviews, and individuals within Hurley’s circle. The defence also maintains that the claims were brought too late under limitation rules. Hurley rejected the suggestion that friends leaked private information, telling the court that named quotes were approved and benign.

How Media and Public Reaction Is Taking Shape

Coverage of Hurley’s evidence has focused on the intensity of her testimony. Broadcasters and newspapers reported her tears in the witness box, her pauses to compose herself, and the visible presence of her son in court. Several outlets framed her account as a human illustration of press intrusion rather than a technical legal dispute.

Reaction online has followed a similar pattern. Many posts expressed sympathy and anger at the idea of domestic spaces being monitored. Others highlighted Hurley’s refusal to soften her answers under cross-examination, noting her willingness to challenge the barrister directly and demand specifics when accused of having leaky friends.

Sceptical voices exist, but they have not dominated discussion. Doubt has largely centred on the absence of physical proof rather than contradictions in her account. That distinction is important because covert surveillance cases rarely produce neat evidence, especially decades later.

Why Hurley’s Evidence Hits Harder Than Critics Admit

The central question in this case is not why Hurley failed to spot phone tapping at the time. It is how anyone could. Covert surveillance succeeds precisely because the subject does not know it is happening. Expecting victims to produce contemporaneous proof misunderstands the nature of the alleged wrongdoing.

What Hurley’s evidence does instead is point to pattern. Her account mirrors allegations from other claimants, including Prince Harry, who described blagging, call interception, and commercial exploitation of private life. When multiple witnesses describe similar methods across years, the issue becomes behaviour rather than coincidence.

The defence strategy has remained consistent, which involves suggesting that friends leaked information and that journalists acted lawfully. And when that is not enough, the defence falls back on time limits, arguing the claims were brought too late to be heard. What it has not done, so far, is clearly demonstrate that unlawful methods were not used. That absence is crucial in a case built on inference and repetition rather than a single document.

Hurley did not present herself as a passive victim. She challenged the narrative that her privacy evaporated because she was famous. Her testimony suggested something simpler. That no one consents to being listened to inside their own home.

As the trial continues, the court will decide what weight to give to inference, credibility, and pattern. Hurley’s appearance ensured one thing. The idea that these claims are abstract or theatrical no longer survives contact with the witness box.