Prince Harry 'forced to perform' for royal correspondents, he says

Prince Harry was put under pressure to foster working relationships with royal correspondents and ‘forced to perform’ for them, he told his High Court privacy case on Wednesday.

The Duke of Sussex said he felt he could not complain about articles or Press conduct because of a Royal Family policy of ‘never complain, never explain’, which he had been ‘conditioned to accept’.

But he said it was ‘disgusting’ for journalists to behave as though he and his wife Meghan had no right to privacy, adding: ‘I have never believed that my life is open season to be commercialised by these people.’

Giving evidence in his legal action against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday, Harry appeared emotional as he said: ‘They continue to come after me, they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery.’

Harry, 41, was the first witness in the high-profile court action he has brought against the newspaper group with six other claimants, including Baroness (Doreen) Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, and singer Sir Elton John.

Associated Newspaper denies their accusations that its journalists commissioned phone hacking, landline tapping and other unlawful information gathering, branding the claims ‘preposterous’ and ‘simply untrue’.

Harry said he was seeking ‘an apology and accountability’ and said in his witness statement that he was ‘motivated by truth, justice and accountability’.

His evidence was interrupted by the trial judge Mr Justice Nicklin, who reminded him to answer questions from Mr White, rather than setting out his case.

Referring to David Sherborne, the barrister for Harry and the other claimants, the judge told him: ‘You don’t have to bear the burden of arguing this case today. You don’t have to carry that burden, that’s why Mr Sherborne’s here.’

Harry appeared to bristle as he was questioned by Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers, about whether his friends were ‘leaky’ and could have been the source of journalists’ information.

And he denied he had ever used a Facebook profile, under the name ‘Mr Mischief’, to message a Mail on Sunday journalist.

‘For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not friends with any of these journalists and never have been,’ he said, adding: ‘My social circles were not leaky, I want to make that absolutely clear.’

He was quizzed over messages to friends, in which he questioned how information had appeared in Press articles. When it was put to him that a Mail on Sunday journalist visited the same nightclubs as him and his friends, he said: ‘Good for her’.

And he said he had previously harboured suspicions about leaks within his social circle, saying he had ‘cut contact’ with people he suspected, but now believed journalists had hacked phones to get information about his private life.

He described how suspicions and the impact of alleged Press intrusion had damaged his relationships with friends and placed additional pressure on relationships with girlfriends.

One former girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, felt ‘hunted’ and was terrified and shaken by alleged intrusion, he said, and became suspicious of her own friends.

Harry said he now believed information in 14 articles submitted to the court had come from phone hacking or ‘blagging’, but had not suspected it at the time.

He denied a suggestion that the articles were selected by a ‘research team’, and said they were chosen ‘in collaboration with my legal team’.

His witness statement stated he had known of the hacking allegations surrounding the News of the World’s royal editor Clive Goodman, who was arrested in 2006, but had accepted then-Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 that there was no phone hacking at the Mail titles.

Harry said: ‘If I had known earlier then I would have acted, particularly given Associated’s treatment of Meghan and her claim against it.’

The Duke has previously taken legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mirror in 2023, and last year his privacy case against the publisher of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World was settled for an undisclosed sum.

The case continues.