A number of other well-known figures, including Sir Elton John and the Duke of Sussex, are suing Associated Newspapers over claims of “abhorrent criminal activity.”
According to legal documents filed on Thursday, October 6th, “gross breaches of privacy” have been committed by the newspaper group, which owns the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, according to Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE, Prince Harry, Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, and Sadie Frost.
The hiring of private investigators to covertly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes, the commissioning of people to covertly listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls while they were taking place, the payment of police officials with corrupt connections to private investigators for inside, sensitive information, and the impersonation of people to obtain medical information are just a few of the unlawful acts alleged to have taken place.
The filling continues, claiming that “many other innocent people remain unknowing victims of similar terrible and reprehensible covert acts” and that “the alleged crimes listed above represent the tip of the iceberg.”
According to what the six have revealed, they intend to “hold the journalists accountable fully, many of whom still hold senior positions of authority and power today.”
In response, a spokesman for Associated Newspapers stated: “We categorically deny these absurd accusations, which seem to be nothing more than a premeditated and orchestrated attempt to ensnare the Mail titles in the phone hacking scandal involving articles as old as thirty years. The claimants and their attorneys, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere, appear to be simply on a fishing expedition with these unfounded and highly defamatory allegations, which are supported by no credible evidence.”
In a previous lawsuit against Associated Newspaper Limited, Harry and his wife Meghan Markle were successful when a judge for the High Court ruled that The Mail on Sunday’s remarks regarding the Duke’s legal claim against the Home Office were, in fact, “defamatory.” This victory was achieved in July.
The newspaper published an article in February with the heading, “Exclusive: How Prince Harry fought the government in court over police bodyguards while attempting to keep the case under wraps… Then, only a few minutes after the news first broke, his public relations team attempted to downplay the conflict.”
Parts of the article in the claim were found to be defamatory, according to Mr. Justice Nicklin’s decision. Although it was implied by the headline if read alone, he claimed that the article did not suggest that Harry “was seeking to keep his ‘legal battle’ with the Government secret.”
According to Mr. Justice Nicklin, the ruling only addresses the “objective meaning” of the article and marks the beginning of the libel case. This means that a full trial can now be held in the case.
The publication of a “personal and private” handwritten letter to Meghan’s estranged father, Thomas Markle, in the Mail on Sunday in 2021 led to Meghan winning a privacy lawsuit against the newspaper in the High Court.
In a statement, Meghan Ragland expressed gratitude to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and The Mail on Sunday accountable for their “illegal and dehumanizing practices” and thanked her mother Doria Ragland and husband Harry for their support.
The Duchess, 39, sued over articles that excerpted a letter she had written to her father, 76-year-old Thomas Markle, in August 2018. She claimed that the articles violated her copyright, violated her privacy, and violated the Data Protection Act.
Samantha Markle, Meghan’s half-sister, is suing her as well for her now-famous March 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey and the details contained in the Finding Freedom biography.
The legal team for Meghan, however, fired back and claimed that the statements she made about her relationship with Samantha were “non-actionable opinion that are also substantially true.”
They have asked the judge to halt the gathering and distribution of evidence pending a decision on whether to completely dismiss the lawsuit.
