Prince Harry Slams Daily Mail Of 'Dirty Tactics' As He Prepares To Give High Court Evidence

Prince Harry walked into the Royal Courts of Justice today, determined to settle a score that has been decades in the making.

The Duke of Sussex arrived at the London High Court ready to give evidence in one of the most consequential legal battles in modern British media history, accusing the publisher of the Daily Mail of resorting to 'dirty tactics' and 'game playing' before he even took the stand.

As he took the witness box at 11:30 am, the stakes couldn't have been higher, not just for him, but for a growing movement of high-profile figures seeking justice against practices they argue have become industry standard.

For Harry, this is not merely a procedural hearing; it is a personal reckoning. Standing alongside high-profile co-claimants including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, the Duke is challenging Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over damning allegations of unlawful information gathering—ranging from phone tapping to the fraudulent 'blagging' of private medical and financial records.

Prince Harry's Evidence Puts Associated Newspapers in the Spotlight

The Duke's legal team has been scathing in their criticism of ANL's courtroom conduct. Yesterday, they accused the publisher of resorting to 'dirty tricks' and 'game playing'—a charge that emerged after a remarkable turn of events during opening arguments.

Associated Newspapers' lawyers were allocated 1.5 days for their opening statement, but they only required 90 minutes. The problem wasn't the brevity; it was the delay in informing the court.

'ANL have had months to inform the court that their opening argument would last less than two hours; instead, they have had to resort to game playing and dirty tricks consistent with the way they have treated not just the Duke but all of the victims in this case,' a source from Harry's legal team said. The accusation stings because it mirrors the very tactics being alleged: calculated misdirection and information withheld until the last possible moment.

Harry has attended court on both Monday and Tuesday, his presence itself a statement. He arrived at court by 11 am today, with proceedings resuming at 10:30 am—a schedule suggesting the magnitude of what hangs in the balance. The trial is no mere procedural exercise; it's become emblematic of a broader reckoning with journalistic excess.

Associated Newspapers' Defence Crumbles Under Scrutiny

ANL has consistently denied all wrongdoing, and their lawyers made their position crystal clear during opening arguments. Antony White KC, representing the publisher, argued that the claims were 'threadbare' and had been brought too late. He insisted that ANL's journalists could provide 'a compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing' across more than 50 articles alleged to be the products of unlawful information gathering.

But here's where the defence begins to fracture. White dismissed evidence of payments made by journalists to private investigators as 'clutching at straws in the wind and seeking to bind them together in a way that has no proper analytical foundation'.

More troubling for ANL is their reliance on dismissing a former private investigator's account as 'inherently implausible' simply because it appeared in a 'disavowed' witness statement. When a company must disavow their own witness, the argument loses its force.

David Sherborne, the barrister representing the claimants, articulated something that cuts to the heart of this case. Harry, he explained, feels he has 'endured a sustained campaign of attacks against him' for having had the temerity to stand up to Associated Newspapers in such a public manner.

The 14 articles at the centre of Harry's claim, written between 2001 and 2013, share a troubling pattern: they 'focus primarily and in a highly intrusive and damaging way, on the relationships which he formed, or rather tried to form, during those years prior to meeting his now wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex'.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Prince Harry

For Harry and the other claimants, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the case is about more than personal redress. Media law experts say the trial could have far-reaching consequences. If the claimants succeed, it may reopen scrutiny of historic newsroom practices long thought to be legally settled, while reinforcing boundaries around privacy and data protection.

As Prince Harry continues his evidence, the case is shaping up as a defining moment in the uneasy relationship between Britain's press and the public figures it covers. At stake is not only the credibility of one of the country's most powerful newspaper groups, but also whether the courts are prepared to draw a firm line under practices once dismissed as 'industry standard'.