On the second day of a High Court privacy trial, Prince Harry and actress Elizabeth Hurley were present as barrister David Sherborne continued to set out allegations that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) used unlawful methods to obtain private information. The hearing, which revisits stories dating from the 1990s through 2018, focuses on a series of articles the claimants say were built on data gathered via private investigators and “blagging.” ANL has denied the accusations and will present its defence after the claimants finish their opening statements. Proceedings resumed with detailed references to emails, payments and specific articles said to contain unlawfully obtained material.
Key takeaways
- There are seven high-profile claimants, including Prince Harry, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John (and David Furnish), Sir Simon Hughes, Sadie Frost and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
- Prince Harry’s claim centres on 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013 that his legal team says relied on unlawfully acquired information.
- Barrister David Sherborne alleged systematic use of private investigators and blagging to access flight, banking and medical details across stories spanning from the 1990s to “beyond 2018”.
- Sherborne pointed to emails from 2004 discussing a British Airways contact and an offer of payment tied to a story about Chelsy Davy’s travel plans.
- Sadie Frost’s case includes about 11 articles and a draft story revealing details of an ectopic pregnancy from 2003, which her lawyers say relatives did not know about.
- ANL has consistently denied wrongdoing, calling the claims “lurid” and “preposterous,” and unsuccessfully sought to have the case struck out in 2023.
- The trial is civil; if claimants succeed, the likely remedy is financial damages rather than criminal sanctions.
Background
The litigation began after multiple public figures filed claims against Associated Newspapers Limited alleging breaches of privacy through covert information-gathering tactics. Claim forms covering incidents from the early 1990s through at least 2018 list dozens of articles and a string of private investigators who, the claimants say, supplied journalists with personal data. In late 2023 ANL tried to have the actions dismissed on the basis they were brought too late; a judge allowed the cases to proceed after claimants argued fresh evidence had emerged.
Central to the claimants’ narrative is the allegation that some reporters routinely used private inquiry firms and blagging (impersonation or deceit) to extract travel, financial and medical information that could not plausibly have been obtained by legitimate reporting. Sherborne has named multiple investigators and identified payments and contemporaneous notes he says link the publishers to unlawful information sources. ANL and individual journalists named in the proceedings have repeatedly denied authorising or participating in illegal acts and say they can account for their sourcing.
Main event (what happened in court today)
Barrister David Sherborne resumed the claimants’ opening on day two, taking the court through specific articles that the claimant—Prince Harry—says relied on unlawfully procured details. Sherborne highlighted a 2004 piece about Chelsy Davy’s travel arrangements, pointing to contemporaneous emails he says show a British Airways contact was approached and offered payment to identify a passenger. The lawyer told the court that the journalists’ explanations for how they obtained the material were “nonsensical.”
Earlier items in Sherborne’s list included a 2001 article about Prince Harry’s role as godfather to the child of Tiggy Legge-Bourke, where an “all-important” quote was attributed to Legge-Bourke and the defence of plausible sourcing was rejected by Sherborne as unlikely. He argued that party planners or acquaintances cited by journalists would not plausibly have had access to the private details reported.
The claimants’ case also detailed Sadie Frost’s allegations, including an unpublished draft by Katie Nicholl that referenced a September 2003 ectopic pregnancy and treatment details—material Sherborne said was so private it could not have been sourced lawfully. He drew the court’s attention to contemporaneous notes and records suggesting ELI, a private investigation firm, was instructed during that period.
The day included identification of named journalists—Katie Nicholl and Rebecca English among them—as bylines on stories alleged to rely on such material. Sherborne linked payments and internal notes to newsroom activity at the time, characterising the pattern as sustained rather than isolated. ANL has yet to present its opening arguments; defence counsel Antony White KC is scheduled to respond after the claimants finish.
Analysis & implications
If the claimants prove that articles were produced from unlawfully obtained data, the case could reinforce judicial scrutiny of newsgathering methods and increase liability exposure for publishers. Civil findings of misuse of private information typically lead to compensatory awards and can prompt injunctive relief or orders for additional disclosure, but they do not carry criminal penalties unless a separate criminal investigation follows.
The litigation also raises questions about newsroom oversight and the boundary between aggressive but lawful reporting and conduct that falls into illegality—particularly when private investigators and blagging are alleged. For publishers, a finding against ANL could accelerate calls within the industry for stricter compliance, clearer audit trails for sourcing, and revised contracts with third-party investigators.
There are security and reputational dimensions as well. Sherborne told the court that tracking movements of public figures carried “potentially serious security implications,” an argument that, if accepted, may shape judicial assessment of harm and the proportionality of remedies. Internationally, prominent losses for UK tabloids could influence media practice elsewhere where similar tactics have been reported.
Comparison & data
| Claimant | Articles cited | Noted date range |
|---|---|---|
| Prince Harry | 14 | 2001–2013 |
| Sadie Frost | 11 | 2003 (noted incidents) |
| Baroness Doreen Lawrence | 5 | Cases cited in filings |
The table summarizes claimants and the number of contested items Sherborne referenced in his opening. Prince Harry’s 14 articles and Sadie Frost’s 11 stories were highlighted during the first two days of openings, while Baroness Lawrence’s allegations focus on several distinct articles. Sherborne used those counts to demonstrate recurring patterns rather than isolated editorial errors; the defence will contest both the facts and the inferences drawn from documentary material.
Reactions & quotes
Reporters and legal teams in the courtroom offered brief public statements as the hearing progressed. Claimants’ counsel framed the proceedings as exposing systemic practices, while the publisher insisted the allegations were without merit.
“We say the explanations of the journalists involved are nonsensical,”
David Sherborne, claimants’ barrister
Sherborne used that phrase while referencing emails and investigator notes he says tie newsroom activity to unlawful information sources. He told the court these documents show patterns inconsistent with legitimate sourcing.
“The allegations are lurid and preposterous and we deny them,”
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), defence statement
ANL’s public position, repeated in court filings and press statements, is to reject the claims and assert that processes in place at the time could explain reported material. The publisher previously sought to have the claims struck out but was unsuccessful in 2023.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the 2004 emails definitively prove payments were made to a British Airways contact remains contested; the defence disputes the inference drawn from the messages.
- Specific attribution that named journalists personally authorised payments or instructed illegal methods is not yet proven in open court and is disputed by ANL.
- The full scope and methods of each private investigator mentioned have not been independently verified in public evidence presented to date.
Bottom line
The second day of hearings further fleshed out the claimants’ assertion of a pattern of unlawful information gathering by or for a major publisher, using documentary material and witness accounts to challenge newsroom explanations. ANL rejects the allegations and will mount a detailed defence; the legal dispute will turn on documentary links between payments, investigators and specific articles.
For the media industry, the trial is likely to be consequential: a finding for the claimants could produce damages and catalyse policy and contractual changes governing use of private investigators. Observers should expect a contested, evidence-heavy process in the coming days as both sides set out detailed factual narratives and legal arguments.
Sources
- BBC live coverage (media: live reporting from the High Court)