...
By Jack Royston
Chief Royal Correspondent
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Prince Harry felt the Daily Mail was “creating distrust and suspicion” and “driv[ing] me paranoid beyond belief, isolating me,” according to court documents released on the first day of his lawsuit against the tabloid.
The Duke of Sussex is suing the newspaper's publisher, Associated Newspapers, on allegations of phone hacking and other illegal practices in 14 stories published across the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday between 2001 and 2013.
The trial began on Monday at the High Court in London, with Harry attending in person, listening carefully as his lawyer David Sherborne outlined his case. Associated Newspapers deny the allegations and are fighting the lawsuit.
Read More on Celebrity News
Prince Harry said in a statement quoted by his lawyers in a court filing, that it was “disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it.”
...
Quoted in the filing, Harry said the “intrusion was terrifying” for his loved ones and put “massive strain” on his relationships while “creating distrust and suspicion” and “driv[ing] me paranoid beyond belief, isolating me."
“I find it deeply troubling that Associated used phrases such as 'sources,' 'friends' and the like, as a device to hide unlawful information gathering," he continued. "I find it shocking to learn from disclosure that Associated were even using [a freelance journalist] to blag my flight details as late as 2014 for work that he did not even want to put into writing.”
Why It Matters
Prince Harry has previously blamed the media for the collapse of his relationship with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, who he dated from 2004 to around 2010. A number of the allegations relate to their relationship.
Prince Harry's Allegations Against the Daily Mail
One news story suggested Davy told a friend that Harry had been behaving like a “wuss” and referred to “long, emotional phone calls” between Harry and Davy.
Separately, Harry's lawyers say they have "exceptionally clear evidence" the Daily Mail unlawfully obtained flight details for Davy, including an email from a freelance journalist providing "Ms Davy’s exact flight details and seat number for a journey to South Africa, and the suggestion to 'plant someone next to her.'"
The story's author will argue she did not remember receiving the email.
Prince Harry described that particular piece of evidence as "highly intrusive" and "deeply disturbing," according to a court filing released on Monday by the court, and seen by Newsweek.
There are 14 stories in all and some of the most striking relate to Prince William and Princess Diana, including one describing Harry's "private and intimate conversations with his brother Prince William, and feelings, as to a statement regarding images of their dying mother which had been published in the press."
Harry's lawyers will argue illegal tactics were used on the basis of: "His own clear evidence that the only plausible source of this information was [unlawful information gathering], and that Clarence House would not have released this kind of information to the press."
Another story, published in 2007, related to "his plans and conversations with his brother [William] about an event that was clearly of personal and intimate importance to both of them, concerning a memorial for their mother," which was held at London's Wembley Stadium that year.
The court filing said the article "was true and both the [Duke of Sussex] and Sir Elton [John] had been leaving voicemails about this fact," which their lawyers argue must have been hacked by journalists.
Sir Elton is also suing Associated along with his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, former politician Simon Hughes, and racial justice campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
The 'Daily Mail's' Defense
The Mail's lawyers said in their own filing: "Associated strongly denies that there was any voicemail interception or other [unlawful information gathering] directed at the Duke of Sussex or his 12 named Associates or that any of the [articles complained of] were sourced from voicemail interception or other [unlawful information gathering]. The claims are without any foundation in the evidence before the Court."
The paper's lawyers added that "what the evidence really shows is that the articles were sourced entirely legitimately from information variously provided by contacts of the journalists responsible (including individuals in the Duke of Sussex’s’ social circle), press officers and publicists, freelance journalists, photographers and prior reports. Consistent with this, the Duke of Sussex has stated that, at the time of publication, he believed all of the articles came from 'legitimate sources.'"
Associated said in a 2022 statement: "We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old.
"These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims—based on no credible evidence—appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere."
What Happens Next
The trial is listed for nine weeks and Prince Harry will give evidence, though an exact date has not yet been identified.
Update 1/19/2026 9:24 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with more information.
Do you have a question about King Charles III and Queen Camilla, Prince William and Princess Kate, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines