The publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday has filed a ‘trenchant defence of its journalism’ against claims of phone hacking brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Simon Hughes and others.
In papers submitted to the High Court, Associated Newspapers denied under oath that its journalists had commissioned or obtained information derived from phone hacking, phone tapping, bugging, computer or email hacking or burglary to order.
Associated Newspapers vowed to contest the ‘preposterous’ and unfounded allegations made by the group, which also includes Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, and actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost.
Their cases were all lodged in October 2022 and remain at an early stage.
The Duke of Sussex and Baroness Lawrence – the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence – allege they were targeted by private investigators.
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex departs The Invictus Games Foundation 10th Anniversary Service at St Paul’s Cathedral yesterday
The publisher has now submitted its defences to the claims to the High Court, and said in a statement: ‘Associated Newspapers has filed a trenchant defence of its journalism against claims of phone-hacking brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Simon Hughes and a number of showbusiness celebrities.
‘In papers submitted to the High Court, the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday denied under oath that its journalists had commissioned or obtained information derived from phone hacking, phone tapping, bugging, computer or email hacking or burglary to order.
‘Associated also denied claims made by Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence that it commissioned private investigators Gavin Burrows and Jonathan Rees, as well as claims by Sir Simon Hughes that it commissioned convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire.
‘Indeed, it is highly significant that Gavin Burrows has retracted a statement he allegedly gave to the claimants, on which their case appears to be based.
‘The publisher stands by its previous statements that the claims are preposterous and without foundation, and says in its defence submission that the case brought by the prince and others is ‘an affront to the hard-working journalists whose reputations and integrity, as well as those of Associated itself, are wrongly traduced’.
‘It says that the stories concerned, many of which were published 20 or more years ago, and not subject to any complaint at the time, were the product of responsible journalism based on legitimate sources.’
