Why Prince Harry and six other household names are suing one of Britain's biggest media groups

Prince Harry and six other household names are taking the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper to court tomorrow over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.

The Duke of Sussex and the other claimants, including Sir Elton John and Liz Hurley, allege Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) hired private detectives to commit a series of unlawful acts between 1993 and 2011.

Harry is expected to spend a full day on the stand on Thursday, a draft trial timetable suggests, while Sir Elton, Ms Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence are also expected to give evidence during the nine-week trial at London's High Court.

The case has been ongoing since 2022 and is just one of several Harry has filed against media organisations since 2019 over alleged breaches of privacy, unlawful practices and false stories.

Here is everything you need to know about the case.

What is the case about?

The allegations range from tapping their phones and bugging their homes to obtaining medical records by deception.

The alleged unlawful acts include the publisher hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes and paying police officials for inside information.

When bringing the lawsuit in 2022, lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of "highly distressing" evidence revealing they had been victims of "abhorrent criminal activity" and "gross breaches of privacy" by ANL.

ANL - which also publishes The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline - denies the allegations, describing them as "preposterous smears", and claims the legal action is "a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers".

The accusations include:

• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people's cars and homes;

• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people's live, private telephone calls while they were taking place;

• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information;

• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception;

• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.

Who else is involved?

While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation, he is not the only claimant.

The others include:

They all allege they have been victims of "abhorrent criminal activity" and "gross breaches of privacy" by ANL.

David Sherborne is the lawyer representing all the claimants. The seasoned attorney represented Hollywood actor Johnny Depp in his UK libel case against the publisher of The Sun newspaper in 2020, and Coleen Rooney during the high-profile "Wagatha Christie" trial, brought by Rebekah Vardy, in 2022.

Harry's late mother Princess Diana, Hollywood actor Michael Douglas and model Kate Moss are also among his previous clients.

Last-minute changes to ANL's opening arguments

A number of outstanding issues were dealt with during a final preliminary hearing on Thursday 15 January, including a challenge by the claimants' lawyers against some of the wording in ANL's proposed opening arguments relating to an alleged "scheme of camouflage".

At the hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin heard that ANL lawyers made "serious allegations" of dishonesty and fraud against some representatives in the claimants' legal team.

In written submissions, Mr Sherborne, for the claimants, said: "The allegations made by the defendants are exceptionally serious, of fraud, dishonesty and professional misconduct.

"They cannot be introduced by assertion in opening written submissions and are not simply commentary on pleaded issues."

Antony White KC, for ANL, told the court the submissions were simply an attack on the credibility of some of the witnesses.

He said in court: "It is not necessary to plead a case if the other side's witnesses are not telling the truth."

Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin ruled that ANL's trial opening note should be amended, saying "the camouflage scheme that is relied upon by the defendants goes far further than an attack on credibility".

He added: "It seems to be that the requirements of fairness mean that the defendant must seek to amend its defence."

Mr White told the court he would condense the claims in his opening note.

How did we get here?

During a preliminary hearing in March 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin was tasked with ruling whether the case can proceed to trial.

ANL had asked for the case to be struck out entirely, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought "far too late", but Mr Sherborne called for the publisher's application to be dismissed.

Lawyers for the publishers said the claims fell outside the statute of limitations - a law indicating that privacy claims should be brought with six years - and the claimants should have known, or could have found out, if they had a potential case before October 2016.

They also argued some aspects of the cases should be thrown out as they breach orders made by Lord Justice Leveson as part of his 2011 inquiry into media standards.

Witness statements from all seven claimants were released. The duke's statement said he was bringing the claim "because I love my country" and remains "deeply concerned" by the "unchecked power, influence and criminality" of the publisher.

On 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin gave the go-ahead for the case to go to trial, saying ANL had "not been able to deliver a 'knockout blow' to the claims of any of these claimants".

The key witness who claims signature was forged

Last year, lawyers for the claimants sought to amend their case to add a swathe of new allegations for the trial.

They argued that they should be allowed to rely on evidence that they said showed the Mail was involved in targeting Kate, the Princess of Wales.

However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this allegation was brought too late before trial.

In a further development in November, the High Court heard that a key witness in the case, private investigator Gavin Burrows, claimed his signature on a statement confirming alleged hacking had taken place, was forged.

In the statement from 2021, Mr Burrows allegedly claimed to have hacked voicemails, tapped landlines, and accessed financial and medical information at the request of a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.

The statement was important, as five of the seven claimants involved in the case told the court they embarked on legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows previously retracted his statement in 2023, but the court heard he reiterated the denial to ANL's lawyers in September last year.

He is set to give his evidence remotely.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously said if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as "hostile".

What happened in Harry's previous cases?

The prince had another lawsuit against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun, conclude last year. The duke made similar accusations about NGN, which involved unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators.

Before an up-to 10-week trial began, it was announced both sides had "reached an agreement" and that NGN had offered an apology to Harry and would pay "substantial damages".

The settlement was reported to be worth more than £10m, mostly in legal fees.

Another of Harry's legal cases, this time against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over accusations of historical phone hacking, did go to trial.

The trial saw Harry take to the witness box, making him the first senior royal to give evidence in a courtroom since the 19th century.

In December 2023, the Honourable Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke's phone had been hacked "to a modest extent" between 2003 and 2009, and 15 of 33 articles he complained about were the product of unlawful techniques.

He was awarded £140,600 in damages. During a further hearing in February 2024 a settlement was reached between Harry and MGN over the remaining parts of his claim.

(c) Sky News 2026: Why Prince Harry and six other household names are suing one of Britain's biggest media groups