Prince Harry can take Mail publisher to court over unlawful information gathering claims

ITV News Correspondent Rebecca Barry reports as Prince Harry and a host of celebrities say they are 'delighted' after an early High Court win

The Duke of Sussex and Baroness Doreen Lawrence can continue their unlawful information gathering claims against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, a High Court judge has ruled.

They have accused the publisher of allegedly carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing and recording private phone conversations.

Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence can take the publisher of the Daily Mail to court. ITV News Correspondent Ian Woods explains what Associated Newspapers are being accused of.

In a statement on Friday, ANL welcomed the ruling, and said the "lurid claims" are "simply preposterous and we look forward to establishing this in court in due course".

At a hearing in March, the publisher asked a judge to rule in its favour without a trial, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”.

Seven people – including David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes – have brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

Speaking to ITV News, Heather Mills said that she too would be considering bringing legal action against the publisher.

She told ITV News Correspondent Rebecca Barry that she believes she was hacked, and "only survived it because her child was very young at the time."

She said: "It destroyed my life, my families life.

"On the basis of the great news today, the claimants can go to the next stages and I will be making a claim. As well as some members of my family that we believe were also hacked and had incredible intrusion into their lives."

Mr Justice Nicklin issued his written ruling over ANL’s bid to end the claims on Friday.

He said Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, “has not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’ to the claims of any of these claimants”.

He continued: “Fair resolution of any limitation defence…must await trial.”

The judge said: “In my judgment, each claimant has a real prospect of demonstrating that Associated, or those for whom Associated is responsible, concealed from him/her the relevant facts upon which a worthwhile claim of unlawful information gathering could have been advanced.

“Whilst it is common ground that the publication of any unlawful articles was not concealed, these were, on the claimants’ case, only the tip of the iceberg.

“What was deliberately hidden from the claimants – if they are correct in their allegations – were the underlying unlawful acts that are alleged to have been used to obtain information for subsequent publication.”

Mr Justice Nicklin also said: “Several claimants complain that they believed that their confidences were being betrayed by people close to them.

“Depending upon what the evidence shows, this may be a significant factor on the issue of both concealment and the point at which any claimant could have been expected to begin investigating whether, in fact, the true source of private information appearing in articles was unlawful information gathering, rather than treacherous friends.”

Actor Hugh Grant, a board director of press reform campaign group Hacked Off, described the ruling as a “significant blow to the Daily Mail and great news for anyone who wants the truth about allegations of illegal press practices to come out”.

“The Daily Mail’s argument, that the claimants should have disbelieved the newspaper’s aggressive protestations of innocence and brought claims sooner, was absurd and doomed to fail.

“When I reported my suspicions that the Daily Mail had carried out illegal activities to the Leveson Inquiry in 2012, the editor Paul Dacre attacked my sworn evidence as ‘mendacious smears’.

"I am pleased that a judge will now decide whether similar allegations made by Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence, Sir Elton John and others are also mendacious smears or whether the mendacity lies with the other side."

In its full statement ANL said: "We welcome Mr Justice Nicklin’s decision that the information we and other newspapers supplied to the Leveson Inquiry under strict grounds of confidentiality remains subject to the Restriction Order imposed by Lord Justice Leveson. In a significant victory for justice and the Mail, the Judge ruled that the information should not have been used by the Claimants and must be struck out from the case.

"As Mr Justice Nicklin says in his judgment, this was an “abuse of process” and if used, “it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. "As we have always made unequivocally clear, the lurid claims made by Prince Harry and others of phone-hacking, landline-tapping, burglary and sticky-window microphones are simply preposterous and we look forward to establishing this in court in due course. "We are grateful to the judge for the careful consideration he has given to our applications."

For the latest royal news, listen to our podcast, the Royal Rota...