Prince Harry's Lawsuit Against Daily Mail Publisher Begins in London

What we've heard so far Tom Symonds Reporting from the High Court A barrister for Prince Harry and six other well known people has accused the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday of falsely denying its journalists used unlawful techniques to source stories. In opening submissions at the High Court, David Sherborne said that Associated Newspapers Limited had kept up a "hear no evil see no evil speak no evil defence", claiming at the Leveson public inquiry in 2012 that there had been no unlawful activity at all. He said his clients would prove that there was "clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering at both the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday" during a 20 year period. He said any success on the part of Prince Harry and the other six claimants in this case would be a "catastrophe" for the publisher because of its blanket denials He said ANL "knew they had skeletons in their closet" because the company investigated the use phone hacking between 2003 and 2005, finding evidence in stories the technique had been used. This followed a complaint by Baroness Luciana Berger to the police following stories relating to a relationship between her and Euan Blair, Tony Blair's son. The court heard ANL has revealed in disclosure to this trial that a journalist, Lee Harpin, described by Sherborne as the "dauphin of phone hacking", had sourced 22 stories for Katie Nicholl, then a royal correspondent at the Daily Mail. The case will continue until March - stick with us as we bring you more updates from the first day in court. What we're expecting from today Tom Symonds Reporting from the High Court I’m in my seat in court 76 at the Royal Courts of Justice. It’s a pretty standard modern courtroom, all pale wood and shelves of legal books. Elizabeth Hurley is here, and Prince Harry has just arrived wearing a dark suit and black tie. He’s sitting six feet in front of me. David Sherborne, a veteran of these types of cases will open for Prince Harry and the other six, and he’s likely to take all day. Antony White, a King's Counsel since 2001, and an expert in media and information law, is the lead barrister for Associated Newspapers. It is a civil trial, so there is no jury, and the judge, Mr Justice Nicklin will decide the case on his own. He will consider the enormous number of documents already presented, including witness statements, hear live evidence from the witness box, and listen to the submissions of the barristers. Some of the pre-trial hearings have seen voices raised, as the judge has showed his frustration with the tactics of the barristers. He wants to limit the case as far as possible and not allow it to become a second public inquiry into the practices of the press. The last one was chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, by coincidence in a similar court room in 2012, the floor below the one we’re in today. Harry's war with the press is back in court. But this time it's different Sean Coughlan and Tom Symonds Royal correspondent and news correspondent It might feel as though we're back in familiar territory - the Duke of Sussex about to make claims in a London court alleging that newspapers used unlawful methods to gather information. But when the case against the Daily Mail's publisher begins shortly, Prince Harry will be energetically fighting his corner against the press, yet he no longer seems to be fighting the rest of the world too. This is Prince Harry's third major court battle accusing newspaper groups of unlawful behaviour. The publishers of the Daily Mail have rejected the allegations as "preposterous" and are ready for a strong defence of their journalism. But the backdrop for Prince Harry feels different from when he gave evidence against the Mirror group in 2023. His successful court battle against the Mirror was huge news in itself, as the biggest royal appearance in a witness box of modern times. He didn't have problems with the questions, but he cut an isolated figure, with no company in the courtroom except his legal team and security. But, ahead of his latest court case, the mood music feels different: he's now building bridges rather than blowing them up. Associated Newspapers Limited denies 'preposterous' allegations Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has been accused in this case of "grave breaches of privacy" by the seven claimants. The organisation has repeatedly denied the allegations - which it calls "lurid" and "preposterous". It was unsuccessful in its attempt to get the case thrown out in 2023 by arguing the claims had been brought "far too late". Lawyers for the claimants successfully argued that new evidence had come to light, and they did not know how information was being covertly acquired at the time. As a reminder, this is a civil case - not a criminal one - and is being heard in the High Court. Typically at the end of a civil case, a judge would issue financial damages to the successful party.