Home » Entertainment » “Newly discovered evidence adds weight to Harry privacy case” – BBC News

“Newly discovered evidence adds weight to Harry privacy case” – BBC News

In a case that has garnered worldwide attention and spotlighted the power struggle between the press and the royal family, new evidence has emerged in the legal battle between Prince Harry and the publishers of The Mail on Sunday. The Duke of Sussex is suing the newspaper over its publication of a letter written to his father, Prince Charles. The latest revelations suggest that the paper’s editors may have deliberately misled the public, but what does this mean for the prince’s case? In this article, we delve into the compelling new evidence that has come to light and explore its potential impact on the ongoing legal battle.


New evidence has been presented in the ongoing privacy case involving allegations of illegal work commissioned by journalists from the Mail newspapers in the 1990s and 2000s. Prince Harry, Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and other claimants have accused the newspapers of phone tapping, hacking, and blagging of personal information. Private investigators have provided new “compelling” information supporting these accusations, according to the Duke of Sussex’s barrister. Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail titles, denies the allegations and claims that the claimants have waited too long to sue. However, the time limit for bringing privacy claims is six years. David Sherborne, the claimants’ barrister, argued that his clients had only recently been able to prove their allegations, as the private investigators had only recently revealed their activities. One example cited was actor Liz Hurley, who only discovered her phone had been tapped this year when a private investigator submitted a witness statement.

Associated Newspapers is attempting to have the case thrown out. Prince Harry appeared in court recently for the final submissions in the case. Other claimants include David Furnish, Sadie Frost, and former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes. Hurley revealed in a witness statement that an investigator named Gavin Burrows was trying to find information about her and her friends, Sir Elton and Mr Furnish. Burrows reportedly hired a telecoms engineer to put a phone tap on Hurley’s landline and hide a cassette recorder in the junction box in the street. Burrows provided a statement in 2021 revealing a range of illegal techniques used to gather information for newspapers. Baroness Lawrence attended court, claiming that she only learned recently that she had been targeted by the newspapers in the late 1990s. The judge heard that she believed the newspapers were only pretending to support her campaign for justice after the murder of her son Stephen in 1993. The Daily Mail had been running a supportive campaign for Stephen’s killers to be prosecuted.

In addition to phone tapping and hacking, the newspapers allegedly put Baroness Lawrence under surveillance. She believes that details leaked to the police were obtained through illegal methods used by private investigators. The claimants’ barrister condemned what he called “gaslighting Baroness Lawrence”. He argued that this new allegation was additional evidence to support his argument that the six-year limit should not apply to the case. However, the judge noted that the initial witness statement made by private investigator Gavin Burrows in 2021 had been discredited because a subsequent statement made by Burrows in the same year denied his involvement in illegal work for Mail titles. According to reports, Burrows had a friendly relationship with journalists and campaigners concerned with press intrusion but subsequently fell out with them.

As the four-day hearing continued, Mr Justice Nicklin said that he would deliver his judgment “as soon as possible”. Associated Newspapers has issued a strong denial of the accusations. The company described the original claims made by Burrows as “untrue, inflammatory, and deeply offensive”.


In the midst of the ongoing legal battle between Prince Harry and various gossip publications, new evidence has emerged that has shed light on the severity of the privacy violations he has experienced. The evidence, which includes witness testimony and extensive personal accounts, demonstrates the toll that this invasive scrutiny has taken on the Duke and his family. Across the board, advocates for privacy and responsible journalism are calling for a re-evaluation of the ways in which the media covers high-profile individuals. As this story continues to develop, it remains to be seen how much impact these revelations will have on the legal proceedings – but one thing is certain: the fight for personal privacy is far from over.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.