Prince Harry and other privacy claimants against the Mail titles have been ordered to disclose details of any payments made to private investigators in exchange for evidence.
A pre-trial ruling in the case, which is due to go to trial next year, found that Harry and his co-defendants had failed to adequately disclose documents held by their research team which could undermine their claims.
Baroness Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry and Sadie Frost Law are suing Associated Newspapers over allegations of unlawful newsgathering dating from 1993 to 2018.
Today’s judgment repeats their claim that “a very large number of different private investigators were instructed or commissioned by Associated to obtain information through unlawful or illegal means”.
They say that “a considerable number of different journalists, as well as desks or departments, within the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday” were involved and “substantial amounts of money” were paid for these services requiring approval by executives.
Some 82 different journalists, editors and executives at Associated Newspapers are named in the claim which relates to 53 different Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday articles.
Associated denies all the allegations of unlawful activity, including: phone hacking, phone tapping, blagging, and commissioning private investigators to target the claimants.
Graham Johnson’s payments for media projects and Mail litigation
The Mail notes that the claimants have relied on evidence provided by investigative journalist Graham Johnson, who has written extensively about illegal tabloid newsgathering for Byline Times.
The judgment notes that this was confirmed by Johnson in a Press Gazette interview published on 5 March when he said: “The Mail litigation is almost entirely based on the stories I published on Byline about five years ago.”
Lawyer for Associated Francesca Richmond said: “It appears that Mr Johnson has made arrangements with other third party investigators in order to obtain documents or statements for use both in media projects and in civil litigation against newspapers including the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday.”
The Mail has raised concerns that the claimants’ research team has been able to “cherry-pick the documents disclosed so as to produce only those documents relied upon by the claimants and avoid disclosing documents adverse to their pleaded claims”.
The Mail believes the claims are also largely based on information provided by former private investigators Glenn Mulcaire, Steve Whittamore and Gavin Burrows, as well as information from the late News of the World and news agency journalist Greg Miskiw and newspaper investigator Christine Hart.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “I am not presently satisfied by the explanations that the court has received from the claimants regarding documents held by the research team (which includes Mr Johnson) and whether they have been included in searches for the claimants’ disclosure.”
His order states: “The claimants should search for and disclose any documents that relate to payments, royalties or other inducements paid, provided or offered, or any demands or threats made, in order to obtain documents, information or other cooperation from pleaded TPIs or any person who worked with any TPI in relation to the provision of information and/or evidence concerning Associated.”
Hugh Grant and a payment of £16,000 to former News of the World journalist
The judgment notes that in 2016 a “memorandum of understanding” was signed between Graham Johnson, Evan Harris, a former Lib Dem MP and privacy campaigner who helped found the campaign group Hacked Off, and Christine Hart, who worked as a reporter for the News of the World and became a private investigator.
Under the deal, Johnson paid Hart £16,000 and promised to “dissuade any potential claimant from pursuing a civil claim against Ms Hart”.
In return she was asked to share details of 24 invoices paid by the Daily Mail and co-operate with Johnson by giving evidence against newspapers.
The judgment quotes one undated email which says: “Graham is keen to get this sorted out. He is meeting with funders tomorrow and would like to show them a result. If he can show you’re on board, he may be able to secure further funding which he says will benefit not just them but you too.”
The judgment notes that Hart said, in an email sent shortly after the agreement was signed, that she understood Johnson to be “working on behalf of Hugh Grant and his lawyer”.
£60,000 deal with former Mail private investigator
A similar agreement between Johnson and private investigator Burrows was disclosed by Associated and was dated 2 August 2021.
Burrows has been named by claimants as someone who carried out illegal newsgathering on behalf of Associated Newspapers, something he denied in 2023.
Under the terms of this agreement Burrows was to: “…carry out all of the work that is requested, including but not limited to research for the book that the contractor is contracted to write (working title Hacker, Blagger, Tapper), research for other media projects, meetings with media representatives and legal representatives, reports and research in common with the nature of the work that has been carried-out by the contractor over the last year”.
The agreement stated that Johnson would pay Burrows £5,000 per month until 21 July 2022 (a total of around £60,000).
The Mail asked why details of this and other payments made to third-party investigators have not been disclosed by the claimants.
The judge said: “I am satisfied that documents, held by the claimants, that can support a case that a witness has been paid or offered other inducement for their evidence (whether directly or indirectly) should be disclosed. That is because there is a real prospect that Associated will be able to rely upon this evidence to attack the credibility of such witnesses.”
He added: “The stance adopted by the claimants has been undermined by their inconsistent and incoherent approach to disclosure of documents relating to payments to potential witnesses and/or other inducements…
“I shall make an order requiring a further search to be carried out to identify documents upon which Associated could rely in advancing a case that potential witnesses have been given or offered financial incentives to provide information or evidence in support of allegations of UIG against Associated.”
The judge also ordered that Associated Newspapers remove certain redactions from the documents it has disclosed to the court.
And he has further ordered the claimants to disclose documents relating to the point at which they became aware of potential claims. Associated contends that many of the claims are outside the six-year time limit for privacy litigation.
The trial remains scheduled for 14 January 2026.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
