Mail titles 'established complete defences' against hacking claims
Newspapers accused of phone hacking against Prince Harry and other public figures have 'established complete defences' against the claims, their lawyer told the High Court yesterday.Journalists from the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday (MoS) faced 'frankly desperate allegations' during their evidence to the trial brought by Harry and six other public figures, the newspapers' barrister said.The Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence (the mother of murdered teenager Stephen) and celebrities including Sir Elton John and actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost have alleged they were the victims of phone hacking, landline interception and 'blagging' of private information by the newspapers.Associated Newspapers, which publishes both titles, has denied the allegations and insisted its journalists relied on legitimate sourcing for information.During his closing speech at the end of the 11-week trial, Antony White KC, for the newspapers, said: 'We submit that Associated has established complete defences of all of the claims.'He told the judge there were 'alternative lawful explanations' for the information contained in articles which the claimants alleged came from unlawful information gathering, including legitimate tips from confidential sources and information which was already in the public domain.In the case of the Duke of Sussex, Mr White said it was 'inherently probable' that information had come from Harry's own social circle and their 'gossiping'. He said Harry had exchanged 'friendly' messages on Facebook with a journalist from the MoS, Charlotte Griffiths, who had called him 'Mr Mischief' in the correspondence. Newspapers accused of phone hacking against Prince Harry and other public figures have 'established complete defences' against the claims, their lawyer told the High Court yesterdayThe court heard Associated had disclosed information from 20,375 boxes of archived material, 1,000 journalists' notepads and 3.5million lines of financial records. Mr White said: 'What that exercise showed was a dearth of documents that support the claimants' case.'He told the court that the claimants' case had changed from the original allegations after a key witness denied he had carried out unlawful information gathering on behalf of both newspapers.Private detective Gavin Burrows gave evidence that a purported confession – in which he allegedly said he had hacked phones, tapped landlines and bugged homes and vehicles – was not true and that his signature had been forged.During his evidence, Mr Burrows repeatedly denied he had ever worked for the Daily Mail or MoS.Mr White said changes in the evidence in the case had left the claimants with 'frankly desperate allegations, put time and time again to respectable journalists'.But David Sherborne, for the claimants, said they had 'made good' their case against the newspapers. He added: 'For Associated, any finding of unlawful activity is a disaster.'Trial judge Mr Justice Nicklin said he would start 'toiling away' on his ruling on the three-month case after the Easter weekend.He did not give an indication as to when a ruling could be expected.
Share or comment on this article:
Mail titles 'established complete defences' against hacking claims
