Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Pic: iStock
Image:
Pic: iStock

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

Sadie Frost. Pic: PA
Image:
Sadie Frost. Pic: PA

Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Pic: AP
Image:
Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Pic: AP

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.

Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish (below). Pic: AP
Image:
Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish (below). Pic: AP

Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

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.

Prince Harry at the High Court in 2023
Image:
Prince Harry at the High Court in 2023

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.

Lawyer David Sherborne is representing all the claimants
Image:
Lawyer David Sherborne is representing all the claimants

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.

Continue Reading

UK

Budget 2025: Reeves urged to ‘make the case’ for income tax freeze – as PM hits out at defenders of ‘failed’ policy

Published

on

By

Budget 2025: Reeves urged to 'make the case' for income tax freeze - as PM hits out at defenders of 'failed' policy

Rachel Reeves needs to “make the case” to voters that extending the freeze on personal income thresholds was the “fairest” way to increase taxes, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.

Speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer said the chancellor needed to explain that her decision would “protect people’s cost of living if they’re on low incomes”.

In her budget on Wednesday, Ms Reeves extended the freeze on income tax thresholds – introduced by the Conservatives in 2021 and due to expire in 2028 – by three years.

The move – described by critics as a “stealth tax” – is estimated to raise £8bn for the exchequer in 2029-2030 by dragging some 1.7 million people into a higher tax band as their pay goes up.

Rachel Reeves, pictured the day after delivering the budget. Pic: PA
Image:
Rachel Reeves, pictured the day after delivering the budget. Pic: PA

The chancellor previously said she would not freeze thresholds as it would “hurt working people” – prompting accusations she has broken the trust of voters.

During the general election campaign, Labour promised not to increase VAT, national insurance or income tax rates.

Sir Keir Starmer has insisted there’s been no manifesto breach, but acknowledged people were being asked to “contribute” to protect public services.

He has also launched a staunch defence of the government’s decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap, with its estimated cost of around £3bn by the end of this parliament.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Prime minister defends budget

‘A moral failure’

The prime minister condemned the Conservative policy as a “failed social experiment” and said those who defend it stand for “a moral failure and an economic disaster”.

“The record highs of child poverty in this country aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet – they mean millions of children are going to bed hungry, falling behind at school, and growing up believing that a better future is out of reach despite their parents doing everything right,” he said.

The two-child limit restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in most households.

The government believes lifting the limit will pull 450,000 children out of poverty, which it argues will ultimately help reduce costs by preventing knock-on issues like dependency on welfare – and help people find jobs.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Budget winners and losers

Speaking to Rigby, Baroness Harman said Ms Reeves now needed to convince “the woman on the doorstep” of why she’s raised taxes in the way that she has.

“I think Rachel really answered it very, very clearly when she said, ‘well, actually, we haven’t broken the manifesto because the manifesto was about rates’.

“And you remember there was a big kerfuffle before the budget about whether they would increase the rate of income tax or the rate of national insurance, and they backed off that because that would have been a breach of the manifesto.

“But she has had to increase the tax take, and she’s done it by increasing by freezing the thresholds, which she says she didn’t want to do. But she’s tried to do it with the fairest possible way, with counterbalancing support for people on low incomes.”

Read more:
Labour’s credibility might not be recoverable
Budget 2025 is a big risk for Labour’s election plans

She added: “And that is the argument that’s now got to be had with the public. The Labour members of parliament are happy about it. The markets essentially are happy about it. But she needs to make the case, and everybody in the government is going to need to make the case about it.

“This was a difficult thing to do, but it’s been done in the fairest possible way, and it’s for the good, because it will protect people’s cost of living if they’re on low incomes.”

Continue Reading

UK

Twenty two stadiums and 4.5 million tickets – home nations submit bid for 2035 Women’s World Cup

Published

on

By

Twenty two stadiums and 4.5 million tickets - home nations submit bid for 2035 Women's World Cup

The football associations of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have officially launched and released more details about their joint bid for the 2035 Women’s World Cup.

If the bid is successful, it would be the first football World Cup hosted in the UK since 1966, and the largest single-sport event ever staged in the country.

The bid includes 22 proposed stadiums – 16 in England, three in Wales, two in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland – across 16 host cities.

Organisers claim it would be the most accessible tournament ever, with 63 million people living within two hours of a proposed venue.

They predict the tournament would generate 4.5 million ticket sales and have a projected global TV audience of 3.5 billion.

The tournament would involve 104 matches contested by 48 teams over 39 days, with 48 team base camp training sites, 82 venue-specific training sites and 32 FIFA Fan Festival Sites proposed.

In April, FIFA president Gianni Infantino revealed that the home nations had submitted the only valid bid for tournament.

More on Football

In a joint statement, the CEOs of the various football associations, said: “We are proud of the growth that we’ve driven in recent years across the women’s and girls’ game.”

They added that: “A Women’s World Cup in the UK has the power to turbo charge the women’s and girls’ game both in the UK and globally.”

Where would the matches be played?

The bid details the host cities and stadiums as follow:

• Belfast – The Clearer Twist National Stadium at Windsor Park

• Birmingham – The Sports Quarter Stadium and Villa Park

• Brighton & Hove – The American Express Stadium

• Bristol – Ashton Gate

• Cardiff – Cardiff City Stadium and Principality Stadium

• Edinburgh – Easter Road

• Glasgow – Hampden Park

• Leeds – Elland Road

• Liverpool – The Hill Dickinson Stadium

• London – Chelsea FC Stadium, Emirates Stadium, Selhurst Park, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and Wembley Stadium connected by EE

• Manchester – Etihad Stadium

• Trafford – Old Trafford

• Newcastle – St James’ Park

• Nottingham – The City Ground

• Sunderland – Stadium of Light

• Wrexham – STōK Racecourse

However, some of the stadiums mentioned above were merely the ones put forward in the official bid and are likely to change after the construction of new stadiums are completed.

Continue Reading

UK

Have you seen this nutcracker? CCTV shows thief stealing festive statue in Edinburgh

Published

on

By

Have you seen this nutcracker? CCTV shows thief stealing festive statue in Edinburgh

The manager of an Edinburgh cocktail bar will speak to police today over the “catastrophic” theft of an eight-foot tall nutcracker figure from outside his venue.

In what can only be described as a total nightmare before Christmas, a person riding an e-bike guaranteed a place on the naughty list by stealing the Copper Blossom’s festive statue on Monday.

They are seen on CCTV placing the soldier across their lap and riding off into the night down George Street towards St Andrew Square.

The thief was wearing a dark hoodie
Image:
The thief was wearing a dark hoodie

Speaking to The UK Tonight on Sky News, manager Paul Paxton said it was a massive financial blow for his bar.

“The individual nutcrackers are about £900 each,” he revealed.

The stolen one is named Nolan, while his “brother” Nelson remains “safe and sound”.

They were part of the Copper Blossom’s outdoor Christmas display, and Nelson has now been moved into the foyer.

Mr Paxton said he would be speaking to police about their investigation, with sightings having been reported “around Edinburgh” later on the night of the incident.

Nolan, who the owner described as “massive”, was taken at around 10.10pm. The CCTV footage shows the thief removing the statue and dragging it on to their bike.

You can see Nolan being taken away in this shot
Image:
You can see Nolan being taken away in this shot

As if losing a £900 nutcracker wasn’t bad enough, a table costing hundreds of pounds was also broken.

“It’s pretty catastrophic,” said Mr Paxton.

The bar had originally put out an appeal that said “if you return it, we’re all good” – but he admitted he doesn’t expect Nolan’s return any time soon.

Paul Paxton is dwarfed by his nutcracker soldiers
Image:
Paul Paxton is dwarfed by his nutcracker soldiers

And while he’d “never want someone to go into harm’s way”, he told Jayne Secker he was a little disappointed no witnesses alerted him or his staff to the theft.

“There were about 12 or 13 people who walked past,” he said.

“Even if someone had run in, that could have helped. It wasn’t a quick process – he fell off his bike.

“A heads-up would have been lovely.”

Continue Reading

Trending