Latest hearing in Duke of Sussex legal claim against Mail publisher due to begin
Harry and several other high-profile individuals, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, and politician Sir Simon Hughes, are bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
They have accused the publisher of allegedly carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, 'blagging' private records, burglaries to order and accessing and recording private phone conversations.
ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal action, previously describing the claims as 'lurid' and 'simply preposterous'.
The two-day hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to begin on Tuesday, and comes just days after Harry lost a Court of Appeal battle over his security arrangements while in the UK.
It is expected to deal with several preliminary issues in the claims, with no findings yet made in respect of the allegations.
In November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed ANL's bid for a ruling in its favour before a trial, after the publisher's lawyers argued the claims were brought 'far too late'.
Then, in March last year, Government ministers ruled that confidential documents from the Leveson Inquiry relating to Daily Mail records of payments to private investigators could be disclosed in the duke's claim, after changing restrictions on the documents put in place during the inquiry.
Then-culture secretary Lucy Frazer and then-home secretary James Cleverly said in a joint statement that they had altered the restrictions 'for the purposes of the legal proceedings' as the 'public interest in promoting the just, speedy and economic resolution of the proceedings outweighs the countervailing public interests'.
At a hearing in November last year, the court heard from ANL's lawyers that Baroness Lawrence was 'alerted' to a potential legal claim by a text from the Duke of Sussex in January 2022, and met lawyers Harry had been working with a few days later.
The trial of the claims could be held in 2026 and last up to nine weeks, with Mr Justice Nicklin and Judge David Cook stating in a ruling in January that the two sides' proposed budgets – totalling more than £38.8 million – were 'manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
How happy are private renters?
Coined terms Liz Williams, a Reform UK council candidate in May's local elections, began a High Court action trying to overturn the result after she lost on the toss of a coin, having tied with the Green candidate Hannah Robson. The toss of a coin has been used several times to decide local elections. Has chance favoured a particular party? 1987 Labour candidate Bob Blizzard defeated the Conservative May Reader in Pakefield Ward of Waveney District Council after the toss of a coin. 2000 Labour defeated the Conservatives on the toss of a coin in the Worksop North East ward of Bassetlaw District Council. 2007 The Tory Christopher Underwood-Frost defeated the Lib Dem candidate on toss of coin in West Lindsey, Lincolnshire. 2022 The Labour candidate won over the Conservative in Carmarthen's Bigyn ward. There is only one recorded instance of a tie in a general election – in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1886. On that occasion the returning officer used a casting vote to elect the Conservative candidate John Addison. Bag news Which retailers sold the most single-use plastic bags in 2023/24 (legislation compels them to charge at least 10p for each one)? Ocado 190.4m Morrisons 53.3m Co-op 24.8m Aldi 11.4m Sainsbury's 8.8m Farmfoods 7.9m Source: Defra Flat rate How happy are private renters? 80% say they are happy with their current accommodation (75% of social renters and 94% of owner occupiers say the same). Private renters say they pay an average of 31% of their income on rent. They have been in their current accommodation for an average of nearly 4 years. 73% say they left their last rented home because they wanted to move; 10% because the fixed rental period ended; 6% because their landlord asked them to move. Of the latter, 61% said their landlord wanted to sell the property. Source: English Housing Survey The pension gap What percentage of their earnings are employees putting into their pensions? Males, public sector: 7.1% employee contribution and 20% employer. Females, public sector: 6.8% and 17.9%. Males, private sector: 4.3% and 4.5%. Females, private sector: 4.1% and 4%. Across both sectors men between ages of 55 and 59 have average accumulated pension wealth of £156,000 and women £81,000. Source: DWP
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
The High Court's war on truth
In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, Humpty-Dumpty tells Alice: 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.' The assertion is intentionally absurd. If every-one adopted their own idiosyncratic lexical definitions, language wouldn't function, and we'd all blither unintelligibly in a Tower of Babel. But then, Humpty missed his calling as a British High Court judge. Sitting on the bench rather than a wall, the big egghead might never have had that great fall. During this Afghanistan data leak scandal, we've learned that Afghans deemed at risk of Taliban retaliation for collaborating with British troops have been allowed not only to resettle in Britain but to bring along as many as 22 'additional family members' (AFMs). The Ministry of Defence believes the 'vast majority' of 2022's preposterously profuse 100,000 claims to have worked with British armed forces were bogus. Obliged to house the purportedly endangered and their relatives, the MoD restricted AFMs at first to spouses and children. Yet UK-resident Afghans sued the Foreign Office in the hopes of importing fellow nationals with no legal or blood connection to them. One petitioner pleaded before an imaginative High Court judge, Mrs Justice Yip, who has a future as a postmodernist in her nearest philosophy department. (AI explains that the 'yips' are 'characterised by a sudden inability to execute a familiar and previously mastered skill' – in this instance competent jurisprudence.) 'The term 'family member',' her ruling states, 'does not have any fixed meaning in law or in common usage. Indeed, the word 'family' may mean different things to different people and in different contexts. There may be cultural considerations… there is no requirement for a blood or legal connection.' This novel lingual latitude greatly expanded the population of AFMs covertly airlifted to the UK. Funnily enough, the Oxford Desk Dictionary at my elbow doesn't identify 'family' as 'a word with absolutely no meaning', for a word with no meaning isn't apt to appear in a dictionary. Page 276 also says nothing about 'family' meaning whatever different people choose it to mean, because a dictionary doesn't have Carroll's sense of humour. Instead, it is shockingly specific: '1. Set of parents and children, or of relations. 2. Descendants of a common ancestor.' Though perhaps Mrs Justice Yip would countenance the third definition, 'brotherhood of persons or nations united by political or religious ties', as that definition potentially encompasses billions of people and would therefore mean that our Afghani petitioner could bring just about anybody to Britain. Which, thanks to her ruling, appears to be the case. This is important because – sorry to state the obvious – laws and regulations are drafted in words. Government can only function if language functions. MPs vote on bills written in words that must mean roughly the same thing to every other MP. Citizens are told what laws to follow in words as well. Yet if judges may subsequently interpret legal text like Humpty-Dumpty, there are no laws. The whole set-up falls apart. We're ruled by arbitrary court decrees, which are not bound by the Oxford Desk Dictionary or any other staid reference book insisting that words mean something in particular. Through the Looking-Glass ceases to be a satire and becomes a primer. Language joins truth – my truth – as capricious, mutable, mercurial and subjective. Presumably, then, maybe to you a law against 'theft' prohibits taking other people's stuff. But maybe to me 'theft' means crossing the street against a red light, so you can't put me in jail for lifting your laptop. Surprise – Justice Yip's ruling acknowledges the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the basis of so many similar decisions deeming 'asylum seekers' legitimate and impervious to deportation regardless of their nonexistent persecution or their criminality. The ECHR is itself notoriously vague, broad and flabbily written. It's this lexical blobbiness that enables judges to regard it as a 'living document', whose scope can expand without limit and whose meaning can be twisted to suit a judge's whim on a given day. The nebulous 'right to family life' has proven especially elastic, even preventing candidates for deportation from being separated from their pets – and the provision grows only more usefully ambiguous now that 'family' refers to people to whom you have no connection. I gather the ECHR was never intended to be the basis of adjudication in the first place. But then, pleas from countless pundits such as yours truly for Britain to please withdraw from this catastrophic charter for crooks and charlatans fall without fail on deaf political ears. Contorting once-standard vocabulary whose meaning we recently all agreed upon is a commonplace technique on the left. Aside from its secondary definition (the proportion of a property whose debts are paid off), 'equity' in my 1997 Oxford Desk Dictionary means 'fairness'. And who could oppose fairness? Except that, thanks to the wokesters, equity now means 'achieving an equal outcome', aka Marxism. 'Inclusion' means exclusion. 'Gender' used to be a synonym for sex and otherwise only applied to grammar; now it's a sensation of wearing a frock or growing a beard in your head. Most famously, of course, 'woman' now means 'man'. The lesson here? Not only should parliament renounce the ECHR, but lawmakers must routinely draft all legislation as plainly and simply as possible, nailing its purpose down so that activist judges cannot conveniently misunderstand complex syntactic constructions such as 'dog' and 'go'. Parliament might also pass a bill obliging these postmodernist adjudicators to rule in accordance with words as they are understood by ordinary people – some of whom may be stumped by 'eschatology', but none of whom scratch their heads over the meaning of 'family member'. The bill could even cite a reference book to which these befuddled jurists might resort when confused by challenging vocabulary ('a', 'an' and 'the' come to mind) whose precise meaning might be obscured by 'cultural considerations'. I'd be willing to loan out my Oxford Desk Dictionary for a good cause.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Epstein crisis explodes as Trump's biggest allies now break ranks to reveal the days of secret 'cover-up' meetings they've been hauled into
President Donald Trump had only been back in the White House for a mere 38 days when right-wing influencer Mike Cernovich was summoned to the West Wing. Cernovich, 47, wasn't surprised at the invite: as one of the original supporters of MAGA, he'd backed Trump for over a decade and earned his place among the 15 online flame-throwers who were ushered into the February 27 meeting. But he was taken aback at what happened inside, he exclusively told the Daily Mail.
