The publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday has launched a “vigorous defense of its journalism” against phone hacking claims made by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Simon Hughes and others.
In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Associated Newspapers denied under oath that its journalists had ordered or obtained information derived from phone hacking, phone tapping, computer tapping, e-mail or hacking computers.
Associated Newspapers vowed to dispute the “ridiculous” and unsubstantiated allegations made by the group, which includes Sir. Elton Johnhis husband David Furnish, and actresses Elizabeth Hurley And Sadie Frost.
Their cases were all filed in October 2022 and are still in the early stages.
The Duke of Sussex and Baroness Lawrence – the mother of a murdered teenager Stephen Laurens – claiming they were targeted by private investigators.
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, leaves the Invictus Games Foundation's 10th Anniversary Service at St Paul's Cathedral yesterday
The publisher has now lodged its defense against the claims in the High Court, saying in a statement: 'Associated Newspapers has mounted a stinging defense of its journalism against phone hacking claims brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Simon Hughes and a number of show business -celebrities.
'In documents submitted to the High Court, the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday denied under oath that its journalists had ordered or obtained information from phone hacking, phone tapping, eavesdropping of computers, hacking e-mail or breaking into orders.
'Associated also denied claims by Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence that it had engaged private investigators Gavin Burrows and Jonathan Rees, as well as claims by Sir Simon Hughes that it had engaged convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire.
'It is indeed of great significance that Gavin Burrows has withdrawn a statement he allegedly made to the claimants and on which their case appears to be based.
The publisher stands by its previous statements that the claims are ridiculous and baseless, saying in its defense that the case brought by the prince and others is “an insult to the hard-working journalists whose reputation and integrity, as well as that of Associated itself are incorrectly displayed'.
“It says that the stories in question, many of which were published 20 or more years ago and did not give rise to any complaints at the time, were the product of responsible journalism based on legitimate sources.”