Lawyers representing Prince Harry have accused the publisher of the Daily Mail of “drip-feeding” information ahead of an upcoming trial that will see the prince and six others bring legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited. The Duke of Sussex, 41, is among a group of seven that have accused ANL of carrying out unlawful activities against them such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records, and gaining access to private phone conversations.
ANL has denied these accusations against them, with a court trial date yet to be set. This is because at a hearing on Monday, the High Court heard that each side is awaiting further information from the other before they can fully prepare for the case.
While Harry and the other claimants believe ANL is “drip-feeding” information, the publisher has denied these claims.
As reported by GB News, Antony White KC, for ANL, wrote in a written submission: “Since the October case management conference, the claimants have continued to ‘drip-feed’ disclosure, including manifestly incomplete but nevertheless highly significant documentation from early 2016.”
He also claimed that they are still missing several key witness statements.
Meanwhile, David Sherborne – who represented the group taking legal action against ANL – told the court that 11 boxes of evidence had been looked at, but he still wants a further 36 boxes to be looked at for evidence.
In his submission, he said: “The defendant refuses to search any of these boxes, essentially on the basis that the process of reviewing the boxes was time-consuming. The drip-feed of disclosure by the defendant from crown archive demonstrates a fundamental failure to carry out proper searches. The defendant has repeatedly said to the court that it has carried out thorough and ‘generous’ disclosure, but this is plainly not the case.”
The court heard on Monday that 12 boxes would be searched, but only boxes that have matching codes to those that had previously contained relevant documents to the case.
At a hearing last month, Mr White said it was “highly likely” that a research team for the claimants, including Prince Harry, had relevant documents about when some of those individuals knew they may be able to claim.
He alleged at this hearing that the team was using “camouflage” by publishing articles on a website so that they could claim they became aware of certain information through the website at that time.
Mr Sherborne, representing the claimants, denied the allegations as “untrue” and also rejected a claim that lawyers for the group had been “cherry picking” documents.
Justice Nicklin said: “My conclusion is that the documents held by members of the research team, including documents that came into their possession prior to the engagement agreement, are within the control of the claimants for the purposes of standard disclosure, those documents must be properly searched and such documents that fall within the terms of standard disclosure must be disclosed.”
GB News reports that the decision comes before the start of a two-day preliminary hearing for the trial, which is likely to take place in January.
Justice Nicklin said he had made no findings on the allegations of unlawful information gathering.