This has been the toughest newspaper court battle yet, and if the key allegations in the case are true, they will shred the reputation of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The claims are that the papers’ journalists knowingly commissioned shadowy figures to tap phones, hack computers, listen to voicemail and blag or pay for private information. These are criminal offences, so the stakes are high.
Associated Newspapers, the owners of the two papers, flatly denies acting unlawfully.
When the Duke of Sussex embarked on his last legal campaigns, against Mirror Group Newspapers and Rupert Murdoch’s News Group, there was already plenty of evidence of media malpractice.
But the judge in this case, Mr Justice Nicklin, wanted a manageable trial. In contrast to previous cases, he decided the seven claimants could not just be able to reheat evidence previously uncovered, or make general accusations against the newspapers.
Instead, they would have to present facts that proved specific stories were the result of what became known as “unlawful information gathering”, and that Mail journalists knew it was going on.
This made the claim much harder for Prince Harry and his team.
To the obvious fury of the judge, the prince’s stubborn barrister David Sherborne often tested the boundaries of that decision. They repeatedly argued, with raised voices, in front of a watching court.
