Kevin Spacey is set to face civil trials at the High Court later next year, over separate lawsuits filed by three men who have accused him of sexual assault.

A man called Ruari Cannon, who has waived his right to anonymity, and two other claimants who have not, alleged they were abused by the Hollywood actor at times between 2000 and 2015.

They are taking legal action at the High Court against Spacey, while Mr Cannon is also bringing action against London’s Old Vic theatre. The actor was artistic director there between 2004 and 2015.

Spacey, 66, has denied allegations of wrongdoing. He has formally denied two of the claims and is yet to file a defence to the court in the third, which was submitted in September.

In 2023, Spacey was acquitted of nine sex offences relating to four men in a criminal trial.

At a preliminary hearing for the civil cases at the High Court on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lambert set a provisional three-week window for all three to be heard there in October 2026.

She said it is still to be determined whether the claims are heard in a single trial, or in three consecutive trials.

Lawyers had made arguments for and against hearing the cases together.

Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel KC, representing Mr Cannon and the other two claimants, known as LNP and GHI, said in written submissions that hearing the cases together would prevent Spacey and witnesses from having to give evidence more than once.

William McCormick KC, representing Spacey, said the case brought by the man known as LNP should be heard in the county court, separate from that of Mr Cannon and the third man.

In written submissions, he said: “On a rational analysis, the only common feature is Kevin Spacey.

“The fact that he met, or in the case of Cannon, is said to have met, each claimant in the context of his work at the Old Vic takes matters no further.

“The circumstances of the alleged assaults are markedly different and occur many years apart.”

Prince Harry and six other household names are suing the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.

The case has been ongoing since 2022 and is just one of several Harry has filed against media organisations since 2019 over alleged breaches of privacy, unlawful practices and false stories.

Associated Newspapers (ANL) – which also publishes The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline – strongly denies any wrongdoing.

A full trial is not expected to start at London’s High Court until January, but a pre-trial hearing, which helps manage the case and resolve any outstanding issues, is set to take place today.

Here is everything you need to know about the case.

What’s alleged?

The alleged unlawful acts are said to have taken place from 1993 to 2011, including the publisher hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes and paying police officials for inside information.

When bringing the lawsuit in 2022, lawyers for the claimants 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.

Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, describing them as “preposterous smears”, and claims the legal action is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.

The 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.

Who else is involved?

While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation, he is not the only claimant.

The others include:

• Actress Elizabeth Hurley
• Actress Sadie Frost
• Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish
• Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen Lawrence
• Former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes

They all allege they have been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by ANL.

David Sherborne is the lawyer representing all the claimants.

What happened in 2023?

During a preliminary hearing in March 2023, Judge Matthew Nicklin was tasked with ruling whether the case can proceed to trial.

ANL had asked for the case to be struck out entirely, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”, but David Sherborne called for the publisher’s application to be dismissed.

Lawyers for the publishers said the claims fell outside the statute of limitations – a law indicating that privacy claims should be brought with six years – and the claimants should have known, or could have found out, they had a potential case before October 2016.

They also argued some aspects of the cases should be thrown out as they breach orders made by Lord Justice Leveson as part of his 2011 inquiry into media standards.

During the hearing, a number of the claimants attended the High Court, including Prince Harry, to the surprise of the British media.

Witness statements from all seven claimants were also released. The duke’s statement said he is bringing the claim “because I love my country” and remains “deeply concerned” by the “unchecked power, influence and criminality” of the publisher.

“If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed,” he said.

On 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin gave the go-ahead for the case to go to trial, saying ANL had “not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’ to the claims of any of these claimants”.

What’s happened since?

Earlier this year, lawyers for the claimants sought to amend their case to add a swathe of new allegations for the trial.

They argued that they should be allowed to rely on evidence that they said showed the Mail was involved in targeting Kate, the Princess of Wales.

However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this allegation was brought too late before trial.

In a further development in November, the High Court heard that a key witness in the case, private investigator Gavin Burrows, claimed his signature on a statement confirming alleged hacking had taken place, was forged.

In the statement from 2021, Mr Burrows allegedly claimed to have hacked voicemails, tapped landlines, and accessed financial and medical information at the request of a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.

The statement was important, as five of the seven claimants involved in the case told the court they embarked on legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows previously retracted his statement in 2023, but the court heard he reiterated the denial to ANL’s lawyers in September this year.

It is now up to the claimant’s lawyer Mr Sherborne to decide if he still wants to call Mr Burrows as a witness for the trial.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously said if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

Could the case end before going to trial?

In short, yes.

During pre-trial reviews, cases can either be settled or dismissed from court in both civil and criminal cases, meaning no trial will take place.

This happened in Harry’s case against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun. The duke made similar accusations about NGN, which involved unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators.

Before an up-to 10-week trial began earlier this year, it was announced both sides had “reached an agreement” and that NGN had offered an apology to Harry and would pay “substantial damages”.

The settlement was reported to be worth more than £10m, mostly in legal fees.

Another of Harry’s legal cases, this time against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over accusations of historical phone hacking, did go to trial.

The trial saw Harry take to the witness box, making him the first senior royal to give evidence in a courtroom since the 19th century.

In December 2023, the Honourable Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke’s phone had been hacked “to a modest extent” between 2003 and 2009, and 15 of 33 articles he complained about were the product of unlawful techniques.

He was awarded £140,600 in damages. During a further hearing in February 2024 a settlement was reached between Harry and MGN over the remaining parts of his claim.

If the ANL trial does go ahead early next year, it is unknown if Harry will travel to London to attend.

Reports of a “board-level orchestrated coup” at the BBC are “complete nonsense”, non-executive director Sir Robbie Gibb has told MPs.

Sir Robbie, whose position on the BBC board has been challenged by critics in recent weeks, was among senior leaders, including the broadcaster’s chair, Samir Shah, to face questions from the Culture, Media and Sport committee about the current crisis.

The hearing took place in the wake of the fallout over the edit of a speech by US President Donald Trump, which prompted the resignation of the corporation’s director-general and the chief executive of BBC News, and the threat of a lawsuit from the US president.

Former editorial adviser Michael Prescott, whose leaked memo sparked the recent chain of events, also answered questions from MPs – telling the hearing he felt he kept seeing “incipient problems” that were not being tackled.

He also said Mr Trump’s reputation had “probably not” been tarnished by the Panorama edit.

During his own questioning, Sir Robbie addressed concerns of potential political bias – he left BBC News in 2017 to become then prime minister Theresa May’s director of communications, a post he held until 2019, and was appointed to the BBC board in 2021 by Boris Johnson.

“I know it’s hard to marry the fact that I spent two years as director of communications for the government… and my genuine passion for impartiality,” he said.

“I want to hear the full range of views… I don’t want the BBC to be partisan or favour any particular way.”

Asked about reports and speculation that there has been a “board-level orchestrated coup”, Sir Robbie responded: “It’s up there as one of the most ridiculous charges… People had to find some angle.

“It’s complete nonsense. It’s also deeply offensive to fellow board members… people of great standing in different fields.”

He said his political work has been “weaponised” – and that it was hard as a non-executive member of the BBC to respond to criticism.

‘We should have made the decision earlier’

Mr Shah admitted the BBC was too slow in responding to the issue of the Panorama edit of Mr Trump, which had been flagged long before the leaked memo.

“Looking back, I think we should have made the decision earlier,” he said. “I think in May, as it happens.

“I think there is an issue about how quickly we respond, the speed of our response. Why do we not do it quickly enough? Why do we take so much time? And this was another illustration of that.”

Following reports of the leaked memo, it took nearly a week for the BBC to issue an apology.

Mr Shah told the committee he did not think Mr Davie needed to resign over the issue and that he “spent a great deal of time” trying to stop him from doing so.

Is director-general role too big for one person?

Asked about his own position, Mr Shah said his job now is to “steady the ship”, and that he is not someone “who walks away from a problem”.

A job advert for the BBC director-general role has since gone live on the corporation’s careers website.

Mr Shah told the hearing his view is that the role is “too big” for one person and that he is “inclined” to restructure roles at the top.

He says he believes there should also be a deputy director-general who is “laser-focused on journalism”, which is “the most important thing and our greatest vulnerability”.

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Prescott gave evidence alongside another former BBC editorial adviser, Caroline Daniel.

He told the CMS committee that there are “issues of denial” at the BBC and said “the management did not accept there was a problem” with the Panorama episode.

Mr Prescott’s memo highlighted concerns about the way clips of Mr Trump’s speech on January 6 2021 were spliced together so it appeared he had told supporters he was going to walk to the US Capitol with them to “fight like hell”.

‘I can’t think of anything I agree with Trump on’

Mr Trump has said he is going to pursue a lawsuit of between $1bn and $5bn against the broadcaster, despite receiving an official public apology.

Asked if the documentary had harmed Mr Trump’s image, Mr Prescott responded: “I should probably restrain myself a little bit, given that there is a potential legal action.

“All I could say is, I can’t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on.”

He was later pushed on the subject, and asked again if he agreed that the programme tarnished the president’s reputation, to which he then replied: “Probably not.”

Read more:
Experts on why Trump might struggle to win lawsuit
Why are people calling for Sir Robbie Gibb to go?

Mr Prescott, a former journalist, also told the committee he did not know how his memo was leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

“At the most fundamental level, I wrote that memo, let me be clear, because I am a strong supporter of the BBC.

“The BBC employs talented professionals across all of its factual and non-factual programmes, and most people in this country, certainly myself included, might go as far as to say that they love the BBC.

He said he “never envisaged” the fallout that would occur. “I was hoping the concerns I had could, and would, be addressed privately in the first instance.”

Asked if he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased, he said: “No, I don’t.”

He said that “tonnes” of the BBC’s work is “world class” – but added that there is “real work that needs to be done” to deal with problems.

Mr Davie, he said, did a “first-rate job” as director-general but had a “blind spot” toward editorial failings.