Prince Harry believes he has faced a sustained campaign of attacks for having "stood up" to the publisher of the Daily Mail, with his lawyers claiming that 14 articles about him were secured using unlawful information-gathering by Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Harry is one of seven prominent claimants who are attempting to disprove the newspaper group's repeated denials that it ever engaged in unlawful information-gathering. His defence team, led by barrister David Sherborne, has highlighted key parts of the case against the publisher, including articles that they claim bore the hallmarks of unlawful information-gathering.
One article, which cited a "family source", revealed Harry had been chosen as godfather to the child of his former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke. Sherborne said no one in the wider family had been told, including King Charles. The article was allegedly obtained by royal correspondent Katie Nicholl from an unknown source who claimed to have information about Davy's personal life.
The defence team has claimed that Associated Newspapers' journalists were paid £200 in cash by Rebecca English, the Daily Mail's royal editor, for a "Chelsy tip" which included Davy's exact flight details. However, the newspaper group denies using unlawful means to secure the story.
Associated Newspapers' legal team argues that the stories had been obtained "entirely legitimately from information variously provided by contacts of the journalists responsible". The defence team claims that the claimants are "clutching at straws" and seeking to bind Associated Newspapers together with flimsy evidence.
Harry is one of seven prominent claimants who are attempting to disprove the newspaper group's repeated denials that it ever engaged in unlawful information-gathering. His defence team, led by barrister David Sherborne, has highlighted key parts of the case against the publisher, including articles that they claim bore the hallmarks of unlawful information-gathering.
One article, which cited a "family source", revealed Harry had been chosen as godfather to the child of his former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke. Sherborne said no one in the wider family had been told, including King Charles. The article was allegedly obtained by royal correspondent Katie Nicholl from an unknown source who claimed to have information about Davy's personal life.
The defence team has claimed that Associated Newspapers' journalists were paid £200 in cash by Rebecca English, the Daily Mail's royal editor, for a "Chelsy tip" which included Davy's exact flight details. However, the newspaper group denies using unlawful means to secure the story.
Associated Newspapers' legal team argues that the stories had been obtained "entirely legitimately from information variously provided by contacts of the journalists responsible". The defence team claims that the claimants are "clutching at straws" and seeking to bind Associated Newspapers together with flimsy evidence.
. If it's true that they used "family sources" or someone who claimed to have info about his personal life... shouldn't there be some accountability? 
Not saying he's not being treated unfairly, but this whole thing seems like a big mess 
. And £200 cash for the tip? That's just weird 
.
. If there's really no wrongdoing going on, then why all the denials and attempts to discredit the claimants? 
Just seems like a lot of back-and-forth to me 
.
. Like, who didn't know Prince Harry was gonna be godfather to his former nanny's kid? I mean, it's not like that's public info or anything... 
Anyway, sounds like he's trying to stir up some attention with his lawyers, as per usual 
. And wow, £200 in cash for a tip from the royal editor? That's just soooo suspicious 
. I'm sure it's just a totally legit and not-at-all-creepy way that Associated Newspapers got that info... 
. And now his team is coming out swinging with some pretty juicy info about how the newspaper got its hands on some of these articles 
. And it's not like they're making any wild accusations - they're just saying that the Daily Mail has been engaging in some pretty shady practices 
. I'm loving the fact that this whole thing is going public now, though 
. It's time for those responsible to be held accountable 
.
, but I think it's clear that there's been some dodgy dealings going on in the media world... or maybe I'm just giving them an easy out 
.
. Either way, it seems pretty messy.
They're all like "we just got the info from a contact" but really they were probably bribed or something... £200 in cash for a tip about someone's flight details? That's like, totally not cool 
I'm not surprised to hear Prince Harry's lawyers claiming a sustained campaign of attacks against him, especially considering his public profile. It seems like a typical case of he-said-she-said, with each side presenting their own narrative and evidence. The question remains whether Associated Newspapers indeed engaged in unlawful information-gathering or if these claims are just another attempt to discredit the royal family.
Whatever happens, let's hope the truth comes out! 
. And now it seems like the royal family is getting dragged into all of this too - King Charles didn't even know about one of those stories?! 
That's just wild.