The Duke of Sussex is due to be cross-examined in the High Court this week as hearings get under way in his case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror over the alleged unlawful gathering of information.
Prince Harry is suing Mirror Group Newspapers for damages, claiming journalists carried out or authorised phone-hacking, “blagging” or gaining information by deception and the use of private investigators for unlawful activities.
Even though he and his wife Meghan moved to California more than three years ago, he remains mired in several legal battles making their way through the British courts.
Most of the cases relate to alleged intrusion and illegality by the media – behaviour that Harry recently said he now views as his “life’s work” to curtail.
Others have involved the provision of police protection for him and Meghan – and whether they should still be given the same degree of security as senior royals in the UK after they stepped back from their duties.
These are the legal cases the duke has been involved in over the past four years:
Privacy claim against Splash News and Picture Agency
In May 2019, Harry accepted substantial damages and an apology from a news agency that took pictures of his home in the Cotswolds from a helicopter.
Harry settled privacy and data protection claims against Splash News and Picture Agency over photographs “of and into the living area and dining area of the home and directly into the bedroom”.
The court heard Splash agreed to pay damages and legal costs.
Legal action against the Home Office
The duke has brought legal action against the Home Office over the security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK.
He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which falls under the remit of the Home Office – over his security, after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting.
The duke’s legal team argue that the security arrangements set out in a letter from Ravec, and their application when he visited the UK in June 2021, were invalid due to “procedural unfairness”, and there will be a full High Court hearing to review the duke’s claim.
Harry asked for permission to bring a second High Court challenge against the Home Office over a decision that he should not be allowed to pay privately for his protective security. However, this was refused in a ruling by Mr Justice Chamberlain last month.
Libel claim against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL)
The duke is bringing a libel claim against ANL – the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday – over an article about his case against the Home Office.
The story was published online and in the newspaper in February 2022 under the headline: “Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute”.
Justin Rushbrooke KC, for Harry, said the Mail On Sunday article “purported to reveal, in sensational terms” that information from court documents filed by the duke “contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK”.
ANL is contesting the claim, arguing the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause “serious harm” to his reputation.
At a preliminary hearing in March, the High Court heard the duke’s bid to strike out ANL’s “honest opinion” defence or grant judgment in his favour on it. A judgment is expected later this year.
Alleged unlawful information gathering at News Group Newspapers (NGN)
Harry is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World, over alleged unlawful information gathering.
The duke alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for the papers.
At a hearing in April, the publisher asked a judge to throw out his claim, arguing it was brought too late, along with a similar claim brought by Hugh Grant.
However, Harry’s lawyers said it was an attempt to go behind an alleged “secret agreement” between the royal family as an institution and NGN, which the duke was informed of in 2012.
NGN denies that such an agreement was in place.
A judgment is expected later this year.
Alleged unlawful information gathering at Associated Newspapers Limited
Harry is one of seven people, also including David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, bringing legal action against ANL over denied allegations it carried out or commissioned unlawful information gathering.
The allegations include hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing and recording private phone conversations.
ANL, which “firmly” denies the allegations, asked a judge to rule in its favour without a trial, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”.
A judgment is expected later this year.
Alleged unlawful information gathering at Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)
Harry’s is one of four “representative” cases of alleged unlawful information gathering at Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) chosen by a judge to be heard at the High Court, which if successful could lead to others such as singer Cheryl, ex-footballer Ian Wright and actor Ricky Tomlinson bringing their own cases.
The seven-week trial is under way and the duke is set to appear as a witness, with the court already having been told that former Mirror editor Piers Morgan is “at the heart of” the claims against the publisher. Morgan has previously denied involvement in phone-hacking.
The trial has so far heard how actor Michael Turner, who played Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, was accused by fellow cast members of being “a mole” amid alleged phone hacking by journalists.
MGN apologised to the duke at the outset of the trial for one incident involving a private investigator, but it is contesting the other allegations, and insists the four claimants have offered “barely any evidence” for their “extraordinarily wide claims”, while arguing that some cases have been brought too late.