Some of Prince Harry’s “most intimate and private” revelations, divulged in his memoir Spare and his and Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, could be used against him in court, The Telegraph has reported.
The Duke of Sussex and a number of other celebrities, including Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, have brought a legal case against Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail.
They have accused the publisher of hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, accessing private records and recording private phonecalls.
The publisher’s written defence was released on Wednesday, with Andrew Caldecott KC and Adrian Beltrami KC claiming that Harry’s case was “without foundation and is an affront to the hard-working professional journalists whose reputations and integrity, as well as that of Associated itself, are wrongly traduced”.
They stated that during the relevant time period the Duke “provided the media with private information about himself”, adding: “The claimant also revealed the most intimate and private matters about himself (as well as his wife and his wider family) in his autobiography, Spare, published in 2023 and, similarly, in interviews given to Tom Bradby and Oprah Winfrey in October 2019, March 2021 and January 2023.
“Associated reserves the right to refer to further such examples following disclosure.”
Associated Newspapers have also argued that Harry has brought this case “opportunistically” following his previous legal claims against Mirror Group Newspapers and News Group Newspapers.
Earlier this year the Duke settled the remaining parts of his case against Mirror Group (MGN), in which he accused them of hacking his phone and “blagging” – gaining information by deception, as well as using private investigators.
Harry’s barrister David Sherborne said MGN will pay Harry “a substantial additional sum by way of damages”, and all of his legal costs.
A total of 33 articles in Harry’s claim were examined during the trial last year, with 15 articles found to have been the product of unlawful information gathering.
A further 115 articles could have been the subject of another trial, however Mr Sherborne confirmed that a settlement between his client and MGN had been reached.
He said in a statement outside the High Court: “This case is not just about hacking – it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behaviour, followed by cover-ups and destruction of evidence, the shocking scale of which can only be revealed through these proceedings.”
The publisher contested the Duke’s claim and denied that any of the articles complained of resulted from unlawful interception of voicemail.
Following the ruling, an MGN spokesman said in December: “We welcome today’s judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”
Mr Sherborne has also argued that Associated Newspapers obtained information about Harry illegally, however the publisher said his case was “replete with sweeping allegations of serious criminal conduct which lack even the most basic of particulars”.
It added: “It is denied that Associated’s journalists widely and habitually carried out, or commissioned the carrying out of, illegal or unlawful information gathering activities.”
