Harry joins celebrities in High Court privacy battle (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: So let's pick up on that because Prince Harry has indeed arrived at the High Court in London at his case against the publisher of the Daily Mail begins. The Duke of Sussex is one of a number of public figures who are suing Associated Newspapers Limited for breach of privacy. They accuse the group of unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars and accessing private phone conversations. Well ANL have rejected the allegations as preposterous. So let's cross over to talk to my colleague Martine Croxall who is there for us. Martine over to you.

[00:00:41] Speaker 2: Thank you. Yes we've just seen a short time ago the arrival of Prince Harry. He came through the side gate as is typical. Other claimants have also arrived as well. We're not expecting all seven of them here but they are drawn from obviously the royal family and the worlds of politics and entertainment. It could be a nine week hearing. My colleague our correspondent Helena Wilkinson is here at the High Court with me and she's been following the ins and outs of this case which has been going on for quite a few years. Let's just start with the basics. Who are the claimants?

[00:01:17] Speaker 3: So there are seven claimants. You mentioned Prince Harry who arrived at court. You can see those pictures arrived at court in the last 20 minutes or so ago. Some questions shouted at him by some of the photographers and camera crews who were there. He did wave a couple of times but didn't say anything as he went into the court building. So Prince Harry the Duke of Sussex is one of the seven claimants. Baroness Doreen Lawrence, her son Stephen Lawrence who was murdered. Elizabeth Hurley, she walked through the front of the building again in the last 40 minutes or so. Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, we haven't seen them here today. Also Sir Simon Hughes, former Liberal Democrat MP and Sadie Frost the actress as well. So seven claimants in this case and they allege breach of privacy against the publisher of the Daily Mail Associated Newspapers Limited. What are they claiming that breach of privacy came from? What they're claiming, all seven claimants, now there was a generic case that the claimants wanted to put forward. That was struck out by the judge. So what we're going to see throughout this trial that's expected to go on for nine weeks is each case, each article will be put forward by the claimants. Now what they say is that they were targeted by Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, using unlawful information gathering during a specified period of time. And then what they allege is that that information obtained, commissioned, they say, they allege, by the publisher, that information obtained resulted in articles published in Associated Newspapers. And we're going to hear about a number of different unlawful information gathering techniques throughout the case. One of them, phone hacking, we're going to hear a lot about that. That's accessing, illegally accessing people's voicemails. Phone tapping, which is recording or listening to live phone calls. We're also going to hear the word blagging probably quite a lot during this trial, which is unlawfully obtaining obtaining private data that includes hospital medical records and also financial as well.

[00:03:39] Speaker 2: Now this is a case against the publishers of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Limited, and some of the allegations go back a very long way, decades in some case. And the publisher tried to have this case stopped on the basis that the cases hadn't been brought within six years of the offences being committed or realising that these events had taken place. But the claimants were successful in saying, look, at the time, we didn't know about this conduct that was going on, that they're alleging took place. So this is why we're here at the High Court today. But separately, the publishers have said, look, these claims are lurid, preposterous.

[00:04:27] Speaker 3: Yes, exactly. And as you rightly say, in privacy cases, in a case like this, and it will be a big issue in this trial, usually it's got to be brought within six years, unless the alleged victim can prove otherwise. And so what we're likely going to see throughout the trial is the claimant side putting forward that some of the claimants saw articles in recent years. That is going to be a big issue in the trial. But Associated Newspapers Limited, they are defending their journalism. A previous statement that they put out says that the claims are preposterous and without foundation. And it has previously said in its defence submission that the case brought by the Prince and others is an affront to hardworking journalists whose reputation and integrity, as well as those of Associated itself, are wrongly traduced. That is a statement from Associated Newspapers Limited. Just to say, we have journalists, of course, inside the courtroom. The judge walked into court in the last few moments and the hearing is now underway.

[00:05:37] Speaker 2: Helena, for the moment, thank you very much. So for the next three days, it's opening statements from the barristers on each side in this case, due to last for nine weeks. And it's later in the week that we are due to see Prince Harry appear as a witness in this case. We'll bring you updates here from the High Court throughout the day.