It’s always odd to try to parse through the details of Prince Harry’s lawsuits against the British press, because you can really feel the British press withholding information in their reporting and framing information in a very slanted, anti-Harry way. The only reason I read the British coverage is because… the American media doesn’t even try. They’ll maybe do some bare-bones reporting of “Harry’s lawyers were in court again, for a case that’s dragged on for years.” That’s basically what this week’s story is about, Harry’s slow-moving lawsuit against the Daily Mail/Associated Newspapers. This is the case with multiple plaintiffs including Harry, Elton John, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and David Furnish. The trial is supposed to start in January. Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne was in court on Wednesday for some kind of pretrial hearing. Sherbourne brought up the situation where the Daily Mail contracted private investigators to get information about Prince William’s 2003 “Out of Africa”-themed birthday party. From the Telegraph’s report:

The Duke of Sussex has dragged his brother the Prince of Wales into his legal battle against the Daily Mail’s publisher. Lawyers for high-profile figures including the Duke have alleged that private investigators were paid to spy on the Prince and Princess of Wales. The move risks deepening the rift between the brothers, and comes weeks after the Duke reunited with the King for the first time in 19 months over tea at Clarence House.

The Duke is one of seven claimants suing Associated Newspapers for alleged privacy breaches dating back up to 30 years. Associated, which also publishes the Mail on Sunday, denies any wrongdoing and says the “lurid” claims are preposterous.

In written submissions to the High Court, lawyers for the group claim that payments were made to private investigators for information about the Prince and Princess of Wales. One concerns a payment made in 2003, allegedly for information about Prince William’s Out of Africa-themed 21st birthday party. Another invoice from a different private investigator refers to mobile phone data belonging to “his associate, Catherine Middleton, now the Princess of Wales”.

There is also information about two occupancy searches relating to the Middletons’ family address and 10 phone numbers from a “family and friends” list, in which the Princess’s mobile number was highlighted.

The claimants, including Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, have accused the newspaper group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records, burglaries to order, and accessing and recording private phone conversations.

Associated is seeking to limit the scope of the legal action, arguing that specific elements of the claimants’ case should be thrown out, such as arguments relating to the Duke’s previous legal battles with other newspaper publishers, which Mr Justice Nicklin has already ruled should not be included.

David Sherborne, for the group, claims that an invoice dated Aug 25, 2003 was entitled “Out of Africa Story Royal Party Enqs”. The barrister alleged this invoice was linked to a Daily Mail story from June that year with “extensive” details about the Prince’s 21st birthday party – the day before the celebration was due to take place. Mr Sherborne added that an invoice from a different private investigator allegedly shows a journalist commissioning him to provide a “mobile phone conversion” related to the Princess of Wales, as well as phone numbers from a “family and friends” list.

The lawyer says that in seeking to prove his claim, the Duke will rely on an entry found in a spreadsheet belonging to Steve Whittamore, a retired British private investigator convicted in 2004 of breaching the Data Protection Act.

[From The Telegraph]

This is so weird: “The move risks deepening the rift between the brothers.” Why would Harry’s lawyer using evidence of the Mail’s criminal activity in tracking the royals and their girlfriends be a “risk” to the brothers’ relationship? Are they saying outright that William and the Mail are in league, that they’re on the same side? That if Harry sues the Mail, it’s like he’s suing his brother? Well, I never! Obviously, William and Kate have worked with the Mail for many years.

Incidentally, just going from memory, most of this was already known. It feels like something is being left out of the reporting, and I would assume that “something” is the Mail’s defense of “we would never use illegal methods to track, hack or blag on royals.” And Sherborne is like, “receipts, proof, timeline, screenshots, f–king everything!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.