The Royal Family has been accused by Prince Harry of withholding information from him about phone hacking, as they did not want him to bring a claim because it would “open a can of worms.” Prince Harry is currently in a legal battle against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of The Daily Mail, along with other claimants including Sir Elton John, citing breaches of privacy such as phone-tapping and bugging people’s homes.
In a witness statement for his civil claim, Prince Harry mentioned that he was taught to accept his family’s rule of “never complain, never explain” when dealing with the press. He alleged that the institution intentionally kept him unaware of phone hacking information, only realizing it recently as he pursued his own claim with different legal advice and representation.
Prince Harry also revealed that he learned about other individuals within or associated with the royal family who had brought phone hacking claims against the press, indicating a lack of centralized communication within the institution. As he moved out of the United Kingdom in 2020, he gained a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.
Baroness Doreen Lawrence, renowned for her campaign for justice for her son, Stephen Lawrence, also provided a witness statement, expressing feeling deceived by The Daily Mail and the belief that the publication was supportive of her cause. She mentioned experiencing covert electronic surveillance and corrupt payments involving the police.
Actress Elizabeth Hurley, another claimant in the case, disclosed how she was allegedly targeted through phone hacking, highlighting the tactics employed by private investigators working for Associated Newspapers.
The statements were made during a preliminary hearing at the High Court, where lawyers representing Prince Harry and the other claimants faced opposition from Associated Newspapers Limited. The company argued that documents being used in the case were provided to the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 and 2012 under confidentiality agreements, and their use in the court case breached those agreements.
The High Court judge expressed concern over the lack of clarity on who oversees the confidentiality undertakings made during the Leveson Inquiry, which is no longer active.