Prince Harry is among a group of claimants who accuse the publisher of The Daily Mail newspaper of phone-tapping and other breaches of privacy.
Associated Newspapers deny the allegations and a preliminary High Court hearing starting today, will consider whether legal arguments and a judge will decide whether it will go any further.
It’s the latest of several cases brought against the tabloid press by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex over the last few years, and this is just one of several cases Prince Harry is currently involved in.
Here’s everything you need to know.
Who’s involved?
The Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd will take place at the High Court in London and is set to last four days.
While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation he is not the only claimant.
The 38-year-old royal is bringing the action along with others including actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE.
David Sherborne is the lawyer representing Harry and the other claimants.
Who are Associated Newspapers?
One of Britain’s biggest media publishers, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) is the publisher of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline.
Full details of the claims have not yet been made public, following an earlier application by Associated Newspapers who say the claimants’ use of information is in breach of a restriction order made by Lord Justice Leveson.
As a result the judge has sealed the claims until that issue has been resolved, which will be part of next week’s public hearing.
Lawyers for the claimants have said they had become aware of “highly distressing” evidence revealing they had been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by Associated Newspapers.
Accusations include:
• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes
• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls while they were taking place
• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information
• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception
• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation
Associated Newspapers have strongly denied the allegations, describing them as “preposterous smears”, and claiming the legal action taken is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.
What was the Leveson Inquiry and why is it relevant?
In 2011, judge Sir Brian Leveson led a public inquiry after it was revealed News Of The World journalists had hacked the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler.
Initially intended to be carried out in two sections, the first part of the Leveson Inquiry looked at the culture, practices and ethics of the press. It involved celebrities including Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller, Steve Coogan and Charlotte Church.
During the inquiry, Paul Dacre, who was editor of the Daily Mail between 1992 and 2018, and is now Associated Newspapers’ editor-in-chief, “unequivocally” condemned “phone hacking and payments to the police”, saying “such practices are a disgrace and have shocked and shamed us all.”
He said: “They need to be purged from journalism and reforms instigated to prevent such criminal activities ever happening again.”
The counsel for Associated Newspapers at the time, Jonathan Caplan, told the inquiry that “so far as [Associated] is aware no journalist at Associated Newspapers has engaged in phone-hacking.
“It does not bribe police officers and, in particular, it condemns the shameful practice of hacking the mobile phones of the victims of crime, or of their families.”
Part two of the Leveson Inquiry was meant to investigate the relationship between journalists and the police, but never took place. There have since been calls to re-open the uncompleted inquiry, with activists including those from the Hacked Off campaign saying such cases as this show wrongdoing within some newspapers is still taking place.
Who else is Prince Harry taking to court?
This is not the only legal battle Prince Harry is fighting.
The royal has an ongoing libel case against Associated Newspapers over an article about his security arrangements in the Mail on Sunday. The paper says the article was based on “honest opinion”. He has a separate legal fight against the Home Office over the same protection issues.
Other celebrities involved in the case include former Girls Aloud bandmate Cheryl, actor Ricky Tomlinson, ex-footballer and TV presenter Ian Wright and the estate of the late singer George Michael. MGN has contested the claims and argues that some have been brought too late.
And he is also suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun newspapers (as well as the now-defunct News of the World) for alleged phone-hacking. The Sun has always denied phone hacking took place at the paper, and the publisher has not admitted any unlawful conduct at the title.
Why is Prince Harry doing this?
Prince Harry’s hatred of the British tabloid press is well-documented – he has written about it at length in his memoir Spare and spoken about it in numerous resulting TV interviews.
He has said he blames the paparazzi for the part they played in his mother’s death and vented his frustration at the “injustice” of no one being sent to jail following the inquest into the car crash that killed her.
He has also said that media intrusion was part of the reason he and Meghan stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to America.
Just this year Prince Harry accused members of his family of getting into bed with the devil – the tabloid press – to sully him and his wife Meghan to improve their own reputations.
He has called it his “life’s work” to change the British “media landscape,” making it more accountable for its actions. With a high profile and deep pockets, it’s a mission he’s started in earnest.
It remains to be seen whether the tell-all interviews, a revealing memoir and now numerous court cases assist Prince Harry in his crusade against the media, or simply fuel the fire he says he is so keen to put out.
A murder investigation has been launched after a woman’s body was found in the boot of a car in east London.
Detectives said a murder inquiry has been launched into the “suspicious” discovery in Ilford.
The woman, who has not been named but is from Corby in Northamptonshire, may have been the victim of a “targeted incident”, police say.
“Fast track” enquiries were made after the force was contacted by a member of the public with concerns about the welfare of the woman.
This led to the discovery of a body inside a car boot.
Northamptonshire Police said: “The investigation is ongoing and there will be continued police activity over the weekend in various locations, including Corby and Ilford.
“Although we believe that this was a targeted incident and there is no wider risk to members of the public, extra patrols will be taking place in Corby in the coming days for reassurance purposes.”
Detectives from the East Midlands Special Operations Unit major crime team and the Metropolitan Police are working on the case, to try and establish the circumstances that led to the woman’s death.
Essex Police say they are investigating an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred, after Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson said she was “dumbfounded and upset” when officers knocked on her door last Sunday.
Ms Pearson revealed she was told she was being investigated over a year-old deleted post online.
She said she wasn’t informed which post had been reported, but suggested it could have been related to the 7 October attacks in Israel or pro-Palestine marches.
She claimed the officers told her she was being investigated for a NCHI (a none crime hate incident) an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic, but is not illegal.
NCHI reports have long been controversial, with many citing free speech concerns, and Ms Pearson’s account of the police visit has led to widespread support from Conservatives and online commentators, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.
But an Essex Police spokesperson has told Sky News its investigation was never for an NCHI, and that the matter was always being treated as an investigation into an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Speaking on her Planet Normal podcast on Wednesday, Ms Pearson said she found the visit “chilling”.
More from Politics
“I was dumbfounded, upset, it’s not very nice,” she said. “I was in my dressing gown on the step of the house, these two coppers were there just outside the door.
“There were people gathering for the Remembrance Day parade so there were people watching from the other side of the road.
Advertisement
“Whatever I did or didn’t tweet, if somebody found it offensive, that to me is still not a reason for two policemen to come to my house on a Sunday morning.
“You know, they don’t do that for burglars, do they? We know policing is under-resourced and they are unable to attend often quite serious crimes.
“This was the most extraordinary overreach and state intrusion into my private life and I don’t think I did anything wrong and I think their response was outrageous.”
In a statement, Essex Police said: “Officers attended an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview.
“They said it related to an investigation into an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media.
“For clarity: a complaint of a possible criminal offence was made to the police and this is why we called; to arrange an interview.
“Everyone was polite and professional throughout the brief conversation.”
They said an officer told Ms Pearson: “It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence.”
Essex Police say they have complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over what they call “false reporting” regarding the ongoing investigation.
What is a non-crime hate incident?
Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are defined by the government as an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.
Those characteristics can include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
These incidents do not amount to a criminal offence, but they are reported to police and recorded in case they escalate into more serious harm or indicate heightened community tensions.
It can be reported to police by anyone, whether they are directly affected by the alleged NCHI or not.
Not all incidents reported to police are recorded as NCHIs.
They need to meet this threshold, according to the government: “A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual’s, group’s or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.”
Furthermore, the personal data of the person reported should only be included in the reports if the incident in question presents a “real risk of significant harm” to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may take place against them.
The origins of NCHI recordings stem from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, who was murdered by a gang of racist attackers in southeast London as he ran to catch a bus.
An inquiry into his death in 1999 called for the creation of “a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes”.
The first guidance on NCHI was published in 2005, but there have been updates over the years in response to scrutiny over protecting free speech.
The latest guidance was published in June 2023, when an updated code of practice set out a “common sense and proportionate approach that should be adopted by the police”.
The guidance, introduced under the Conservative government, clarified “that debate, humour, satire and personally-held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of an NCHI” and that an NCHI should not be recorded if police deem a report to be “trivial” or “irrational”.
In an interview with The Telegraph published yesterday, Kemi Badenoch said police visiting a journalist over a social media post was “absolutely wrong” and that “we need to look at the laws around non-crime hate incidents”.
“There has been a long-running problem with people not taking free speech seriously,” she said.
She challenged the prime minister to review the laws, saying: “Keir Starmer says he is someone who believes in these things. Now he needs to actually show that he does believe it. All we’ve seen from him is the opposite.”
Ms Badenoch added: “We need to stop this behaviour of people wasting police time on trivial incidents because they don’t like something, as if they’re in a nursery.
“It’s like children reporting each other. And I think that in certain cases, the police do it because they’re afraid that if they don’t do it, they will also be accused of not taking these issues seriously.”
Essex Police said the officers went to the address to invite Ms Pearson to attend a voluntary interview as part of their investigation, which was passed to them by another force.
“The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed,” the statement read.
“An investigation is now being carried out under Section 17 of the Public Order Act.”
Essex Police also said they made attempts to contact Ms Pearson before the visit.
Other prominent Conservative voices such as Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Chris Philp have also leapt to Ms Pearson’s defence online, as has X owner Elon Musk, who quoted a post about the incident and said: “This needs to stop.”
Police commentator Graham Wettone told Sky News the police are “duty bound to investigate allegations of crime”.
“They’ve had an allegation of crime made there,” he said. “They will investigate it. If at the end of this they decide that no criminal offence has been committed – and we’re not at that stage yet – then it can still be recorded as a none crime hate incident.”
The police, he said, are duty bound to keep a record of none crime hate incidents.
“Parliament said they want the police to do this, to investigate and record incidents like this. So they are doing exactly what parliament and society asked them to do, and they are getting criticism for doing what people want.”
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.