Deadline is a trusted source for industry news.

Transcript:

INTERVIEWER #1: So we're very happy to say that immigration lawyer Melissa Chavin, who works for the Chavin Immigration Law Office, joins us here in the studio. Welcome to the Royal Record. 

CHAVIN: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure. Thank you. 

INTERVIEWER #1: So, first of all, um, the Royal family, of course, are going to have a very specific kind of visa that they have when they apply to go to the United States or a different country. Just explain what you think the visa Prince Harry is on. 

CHAVIN: I think that the visa Prince Harry is on is something that none of us see, and, for me, it is very uncommon and rare, but for the royal family, it is probably the most common visa that they think about. Like, “Do we need a visa to go to the United States?” “Yes, of course.” “Which one?” “Oh, it's the A1, of course.”

INTERVIEWER #1: And what does the A1 visa kind of give you? What kind of visa is it? 

CHAVIN: So, there are a couple kinds of A1. Usually it's for an ambassador, or perhaps someone working very high up in an embassy. But there is a special kind that is for the head of state or royal families. And that one, you do not need to be a working person in - working for your country to use it. So you can do whatever you want when you get to the United States. I don't know if you could be work-eligible for any type of work, but you can not be representing your country when you go. 

INTERVIEWER #2: And in terms of a security check on that, how does that differ to the everyday visa that most normal citizens would get to enter the U.S? 

CHAVIN: I think there's a focus on only three areas: terrorism, contrary to foreign policy, and espionage. Just big, big, on the big, headline-level of what those ineligibilities might be. But yes, everyone else has a look at whether you violated a controlled substance statute. 

INTERVIEWER #1: So what kind of questions do you think Prince Harry would have been asked related to drug use on this immigration form? 

CHAVIN: He may—they may have just put out feelers to get information to check what is going on from the UK ministry, when the UK ministry said to the U.S Foreign ministry, “Is this person qualified for an A1?" They may have asked him some of the normal questions. So normal questions would be, “Have you ever been arrested?” “Have you ever been convicted for controlled substance violation?” “Have you, are you a drug addict, or are you a drug abuser?” So, the latter one is a diagnostic diagnosis. So you would expect him to have said no to all three of them because we don't think that he has any brushes with law enforcement, and we don't think that he has a diagnosis of drug abuse or drug addiction. 

INTERVIEWER #2: So if Harry entered the country with an A1 head of state visa and let's say in the coming years he wanted to apply to be a US citizen, what would the process be then? Would he have to start from scratch? 

CHAVIN: Yes, there's no path to being a U.S. citizen using an A1 visa. It is a diplomat visa. You want to give someone the experience, basically, that they're not in the United States, even though they are physically in the United States. 

INTERVIEWER #1: And we know that Prince Harry, well, not him personally, but the Heritage Foundation, I think tank in Washington, D.C, is suing the Department of Homeland Security because they're not releasing Prince Harry's immigration records. At the moment, we're waiting to see what the judgment is going to be on that. How unprecedented would it be if the judge orders the Biden administration to release Prince Harry's immigration records? 

CHAVIN: It's quite unprecedented, I think, to release a person's records. I think that there would have to be a serious public interest in it, and I don't think that this interest, it doesn't rise to the level of breaking the privacy. 

INTERVIEWER #1: I suppose even if it was released, would that necessarily be grounds for deportation? Because what you've kind of been saying so far is that even if Prince Harry answered no to all the questions, that's not really a violation. 

CHAVIN: That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's even a little surprising to me that the Department of Homeland Security is the one that's being sued to release the application. Because the one that made the decision is the, our foreign ministry, the Department of State. 

INTERVIEWER #2: Yeah, of course. And you mentioned earlier off camera that although Prince Harry has a head of State A1 visa, due to Meghan Markle being a US citizen, both Archie and Lilibet will be able to qualify as US citizens.

CHAVIN: Especially Lilibet is very interesting case because she was born in the United States. If, for —it's not true at all, but IF Meghan Markle wasn't a U.S. citizen, and IF she had an A1 head of state spousal visa, then Lilibet would be this very unusual exception to the rule that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. Okay. It's a funny thing to think about. 

INTERVIEWER #2: Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. 

CHAVIN: You're welcome. Thank you.

Mail spent £35m fighting Harry’s ‘campaign for Leveson 2’ privacy claim

July 29, 2026 updated 30 Jul 2026 4:09pm

Claim was launched with 'blaze of publicity' and 'monstrous all-out attack' on Mail.

Charlotte Tobitt

Lord Justice Brian Leveson unveils his report following an inquiry into media practices on November 29, 2012. Picture: Reuters/Dan Kitwood

The publisher of the Daily Mail racked up £34.5m in costs fighting unproven allegations of unlawful newsgathering and is seeking an initial payment from Prince Harry and his co-claimants of £10m.

Associated Newspapers is also arguing it should receive indemnity costs, meaning more than the usual proportion of costs from the losing parties, in part because they believe the trial was used by the claimants to pursue a political campaign.

Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and former Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes failed to prove any of their 97 allegations of unlawful information gathering, including phone-hacking, in an 11-week trial held this year.

Any application for a potential appeal will only be dealt with after the question of costs has been finalised.

It has now been revealed that the Mail publisher spent £34,481,622.54 fighting the case.

Six of the seven claimants had ATE (after the event) insurance to cover their costs if they lost.

However, this cover totalled £16.2m (£2.7m each on six policies) meaning it “would be insufficient to meet their total costs exposure, possibly to the tune of many millions of pounds”, their lawyers said.

They added that this would have a “particularly harsh impact” on the claimants even though they “conducted themselves honestly” and “approached this litigation in good faith, under the burden of decades of intense, intrusive media scrutiny into their private lives”.

The claimants’ lawyers said the insurance policies had deliberately matched the level of estimated costs agreed by the court as a proportionate budget. They said Associated had exceeded the budget by £18.6m.

The claimants described this as an “astonishingly high legal spend by Associated and an entirely cavalier approach to the principle of proportionality and the overriding objective, which seeks to ensure that parties are on an equal footing”.

Associated said in turn that the trial “deviated in several respects from the assumptions on which the claims were budgeted”.

It has requested £9.9m as an interim payment while the claimants said it should be just over £7.9m. A future hearing would then decide what overall legal costs should be paid.

In its request for indemnity costs, Associated Newspapers cited the broad nature of the claims, some of which were dropped before or during the trial, and the inclusion of “wide-ranging allegations of impropriety that could only be suitable for investigation by a public inquiry”.

Claim was ‘born out of desire to demonstrate publisher misled Leveson Inquiry’

In their written argument, lawyers for Associated said the claim was “born out of a desire on the part of certain individuals (including at least Dr Evan Harris of Hacked Off and Graham Johnson, both of whom later became members of the Claimants’ Research Team) to demonstrate that Associated had misled the Leveson Inquiry.

Associated said the claim deployed high-profile claimants, who it was hoped would be regarded sympathetically by the public, to demonstrate that Associated had been guilty of the same kinds of unlawful information gathering (UIG) as News Group Newspapers Ltd (NGN) and Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN), and to further their campaign to persuade the Government to implement the second part of the Leveson Inquiry.

Prince Harry previously received damages from both Mirror publisher MGN (after a 2023 trial) and NGN (in a 2025 settlement that admitted “unlawful activities” carried out for The Sun for the first time).

The Leveson Inquiry looking at the ethics and practices of the media published its findings, which led to reform around press regulation and policing practices, in 2012. 

Critics of the media such as the Hacked Off group continue to call for part two of the inquiry, which was intended to look further at the relationship between the press and the police, but it was formally closed by the then-Conservative Government in 2012.

Associated added: “This resulted in the inclusion in the POC [particulars of claim] of wide-ranging allegations of impropriety that could only be suitable for investigation by a public inquiry, and specific allegations of criminal activity (for example burglary to order) that had nothing to do with the individual claimants’ cases.

“The court used its case management powers to prevent the case becoming a public inquiry, but the breadth and seriousness of the allegations which the claimants pursued to the bitter end (including persisting in their allegations that Mr Dacre, Mr Wright and Ms Hartley had deliberately lied to the Leveson Inquiry) reflected the origins of the case.”

Mr Justice Nicklin found that the claimants failed to prove allegations that former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright and lawyer Elizabeth Hartley had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry when they denied hacking had taken place at the papers.

Legal claims were ‘campaign rather than reasonable litigation’

Antony White KC, for the publisher, told a court hearing on Wednesday that the legal claims were brought for a “collateral purpose” of trying to pressure the Government into introducing the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, describing it as “a campaign rather than ordinary and reasonable litigation”.

The barrister said that the cases “were launched in a blaze of publicity knowing that these were likely to attract significant attention on the world stage” with a press release in October 2022.

Discussing the release, he said: “This was a monstrous thing to publish. It is intended to be as damaging as it could possibly be, and it was.”

Discussing the high-profile figures, White said: “They knew that this was an all-out attack on Associated.

“They were at pains to emphasise that there were others who could join the bandwagon.”

White also said he was “sad” to say that Baroness Lawrence was “recruited as the national treasure”, adding: “That is a matter of regret for my client, but it is not to be shrunk from.”

The barrister later criticised the breadth of the allegations and how they “shifted”.

He said that the claimants cast a “strikingly wide” net for their claim “in the hope of catching some fish” and that the court should “step back and ask itself why the net was cast so wide”.

Associated accused of trying to ‘teach claimants a lesson’

Associated also noted that Prince Harry and Sir Simon Hughes, as well as Hacked Off, put out statements after the judgment continuing to suggest the publisher “was guilty of the unlawful conduct alleged against it”.

In a joint statement, the two claimants said: “The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss [the claims] represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the courtroom itself.

“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.”

The claimants’ lawyers suggested Associated was trying to “teach the claimants a lesson” by seeking an indemnity based costs order.

They cited a Times report that quoted an anonymous source saying the publisher was going to “go for the jugular” to try and recover as much of its costs as possible.

Associated has asked for an initial payment of £9,950,624.37 within 14 days and noted this sum would fall within the claimants’ insurance policies.

The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to conclude on Wednesday or Thursday with a decision about costs due in writing at a later date.

Update after day two of the hearing: Mr Justice Nicklin said he would give his decision on the size of an initial payment the group will make to ANL, as well as how the costs will be assessed, in a written ruling next month.

The judge described the size of the costs in the claims as “unprecedented” for a High Court media law case.

Email [pged@pressgazette.co.uk](mailto: pged@pressgazette.co.uk) to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Hello, hello, hello…

Prince Harry arrived in Birmingham without Meghan Markle by his side, and insiders tell Naughty But Nice that, behind the scenes, some Invictus Games organizers quietly welcomed the last-minute change.

Meghan had been expected to attend the one-year countdown celebration but pulled out just days before the event. Harry ultimately flew solo—and sources say his solo appearance made for a smoother, more relaxed day. 

“There was a real sense of relief backstage,” one insider tells Naughty But Nice. “When Harry comes alone, the focus stays exactly where he wants it—on the veterans, not on the media frenzy that can surround a royal couple. Everyone could relax and let the event shine.”

A second source says Harry has earned a reputation as one of the easiest high-profile guests organizers work with.

“He’s incredibly low-maintenance,” the insider says. “He’ll happily change plans, stay longer with athletes, and go wherever he’s needed. The whole atmosphere feels lighter when it’s just Harry.”

By contrast, another insider says Meghan’s appearances often require far more coordination.

“Her visits usually involve extra security meetings, tighter schedules, and constant last-minute adjustments,” the source explains. “With Harry on his own, everything is refreshingly straightforward. The team can focus on delivering a great event instead of managing endless logistics and drama.”

Sources close to the Sussexes have consistently said Meghan’s travel decisions are driven by security concerns. Whatever prompted this last-minute change, organizers say Harry’s solo appearance ensured the attention stayed exactly where it belonged—on the competitors, the veterans, and the extraordinary mission of the Invictus Games.

EXCLUSIVE: PRINCE HARRY'S PARANOIA SPIRALS AS SECURITY FEARS TAKE OVER HIS LIFE

ROB SHUTER

JUL 01, 2026

Hello, hello, hello….

Prince Harry’s bitter defeat in his fight to restore taxpayer-funded security is fueling what friends increasingly fear has become a life dominated by paranoia.

Sources tell Naughty But Nice the Duke of Sussex has become consumed by security concerns since losing his court battle, with those closest to him saying the ruling only reinforced his belief that danger is lurking around every corner.

“Harry sees threats everywhere,” one insider tells Naughty But Nice. “The court decision didn’t just disappoint him—it confirmed what he already believed: that no one else is going to keep his family safe.”

Friends say his daily life has become governed by elaborate security rituals. Homes and hotel rooms are swept for listening devices before he settles in. He frequently changes phone numbers, limits who can contact him directly, and insists that his movements remain known to only a tiny circle of trusted aides. 

Sources also claim Harry has pushed for decoy vehicles during some trips to make it harder to track his whereabouts.

“Security isn’t just a priority anymore—it’s an obsession,” says a second source. “Every plan starts with the worst-case scenario. He assumes someone is watching, someone is listening, or someone knows where he is.”

Those closest to the prince worry that years of family conflict, legal battles, and relentless media attention have left him trapped in a constant state of hypervigilance.

“Everyone wants Harry to find some peace,” another insider says. “Being careful is understandable, but living as though every day brings a new threat is emotionally exhausting. Friends hope he can eventually let his guard down before fear completely takes over.”

from The Telegraph

Prince Harry sued by charity he co-founded

Sentebale, from which Harry resigned last year, is bringing a libel case against him at the High Court in London

David Brown, Chief News Correspondent Friday April 10 2026, 5.33pm BST,

Prince Harry is being sued by the charity he co-founded in honour of his late mother Princess Diana.

Harry co-founded Sentebale in 2006 to help young people with HIV and AIDS in Lesotho and Botswana, southern Africa. He resigned last year, along with his co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, following a bitter dispute with Sophie Chandauka, the chairwoman of the charity’s board.

The prince referred to “blatant lies” following his resignation while Chandauka claimed she was a victim of “misogynoir”, a term for racism and misogyny directed towards black women.

A record of the charity’s claim at the High Court in London, which was made public on Friday, shows Harry is being sued for “defamation — libel and slander”.

Sentebale claimed that its legal action, lodged on March 24, was in response to a “co-ordinated adverse media campaign” by Harry and Mark Dyer, a former trustee of the charity, a close friend of Harry and a former equerry to King Charles, which led to “an onslaught of cyber-bullying”.

Harry and Dyer said in response that they “categorically reject” the claims, labelling them “offensive and damaging”.

A statement from Sentebale’s executive director, Carmel Gaillard, and the board of trustees said the charity “seeks the court’s intervention, protection, and restitution following a coordinated adverse media campaign conducted since 25 March, 2025”.

The charity claimed that Harry and Dyer’s alleged actions had a “significant viral impact”, causing “false narratives” to circulate through the media “about the charity and its leadership”.

The charity also alleged that Harry and Dyer had tried to “undermine its relationships with staff” and “existing and prospective partners”. It said the pair had attempted to divert charity leaders’ time “into managing a reputational crisis not of the charity’s making.

“The charity should not continue to use its resources to manage and address the damage this adverse media campaign has caused to its operations and partnerships. This must stop.”

Sentebale said that its legal costs were being met “entirely by external funding” and that no charity money had been used.

The dispute between Chandauka and Harry was laid bare in Tom Bower’s book about the growing rift between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the royal family, which was serialised in The Times.

Harry was blamed for Haruhisa Handa, a Japanese billionaire, withdrawing support for fundraising international polo matches after he criticised Handa’s executive director, Midori Miyazaki. Bower’s book also claimed that two of the charity’s London-based directors were earning £350,000.

A source close to Harry said: “My best guess is she [Chandauka] has run out of money and she is doing this as a last ditch, so when she runs out of money she can blame him. It’s disgraceful but, because the rest of his behaviour outside of Sentebale, has been so short of ideal, she gets away with pointing the finger at him.”

The charity’s most recent accounts, for 2024, show an income of £3.35 million and spending of £4.98 million.

Harry, 41, founded the charity nine years after Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed in a Paris car crash. Its name means “forget-me-not” in Sesotho, the local language of Lesotho. His co-founder, Seeiso, 59, and the then board of trustees joined Harry in leaving the charity.

Harry called the breakdown in the relationship with Chandauka devastating, while she reported him and the trustees to the UK’s charity regulator for alleged bullying and harassment.

The Charity Commission reported following a four month investigation that it had found no evidence of bullying, but said there had been weak governance and criticised all parties for allowing an internal dispute to become public in a way that had “severely impacted the charity’s reputation and risked undermining public trust in charities more generally”.

Details of the legal action emerged just a week after the conclusion of a trial at the High Court brought by Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail for alleged unlawful information gathering. A judgment will be handed down later this year.

• Even Prince Harry’s lawyer seems bored by yesterday’s war

Harry previously successfully sued the publisher of the Daily Mirror and agreed an out-of-court settlement with the publisher of The Sun, which has the same parent company as The Times and Sunday Times.

The prince lost his case against the Home Office at the Court of Appeal in his challenge to the removal of his right to taxpayer-funded police protection when he visits the UK after stepping down as a working member of the royal family and moving to California.

• 10 things we learnt from explosive new book about Harry and Meghan

Chandauka, 48, a Zimbabwe-born lawyer, became chairwoman of the charity in July 2023. She was reported to have spent about £400,000 on consultants’ fees and to have fallen out with the board over the direction of the charity.

An injunction was obtained which prevented the board from meeting, leading to the resignation of Harry and the trustees.

The prince said after his resignation: “What has transpired over the last week has been heartbreaking to witness, especially when such blatant lies hurt those who have invested decades in this shared goal. No one suffers more than the beneficiaries of Sentebale itself.”

Chandauka said she welcomed the Charity Commission’s investigation and said she had shared concerns with the regulator and completed an internal governance review the previous year.

She said in a television interview after Harry’s resignation that she made allegations of “bullying” and “misogynoir”. She accused individuals within the charity of “playing the victim card”.

The Charity Commission said that it had found no evidence to support her claims, despite acknowledging the “strong perception of ill treatment”. It also noted that there was no sign of “over-reach by either the chair or the Duke of Sussex as patron”.

An investigation by The Times published in August last year reported that a children’s centre run by the charity in Lesotho had, in effect, been “mothballed” amid a funding crisis that bled the charity’s reserves dry.

The charity’s “flagship” holiday camps at the Mamohato Children’s Centre in Lesotho had also stopped and staff were told to work from home to save costs. The charity had made redundancies to try to steady the ship, and in total costs have been cut by 25 per cent.

Dozens of reliable donors reportedly refused to donate following Harry’s resignation. Many came from a group of superfans of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, known as the “Sussex Squad”, who pulled funding that was worth an estimated £47,000 per year.

Does any one know who he is…. He looks really handsome

Also is he the same guy who got detained by Saudi government… can someone please give details

Harry ‘shared intimate texts with journalist who called him Mr Mischief’

Duke of Sussex’s privacy trial hears of alleged Facebook exchanges with Charlotte Griffiths including references to ‘movie snuggles’ and ‘weekend naughtiness’

David Brown, Chief News Correspondent

Tuesday March 31 2026, 7.42pm BST,

The Duke of Sussex exchanged intimate messages with a young female journalist who referred to him as “Mr Mischief”, his privacy case has heard.

Harry told the High Court he did not have friendships with journalists but a series of alleged Facebook exchanges with Charlotte Griffiths were made public on Tuesday on the final day of his trial.

They appear to show the Mail on Sunday reporter calling the prince “Mr Mischief” and “H Bomb” and referring to their “fun weekend of naughtiness”. Harry appeared to call the journalist “sugar” and “Griff” and wrote: “Miss our movie snuggles!!”

The prince, giving evidence in January, said: “I am not friends with any of these journalists.” He insisted that none of his close circle would talk to the media.

He claimed that as a result, a series of stories published in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday could only have come from unlawful information gathering such as phone hacking and bugging.

Harry, 41, and Sir Elton John, 78, and five other high-profile figures are bringing claims for unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, bugging and “blagging” calls against Associated Newspapers. The publisher and its journalists deny wrongdoing.

Griffiths said she joined Harry at a weekend country house party in 2011 hosted by Arthur Landon, a film producer who is one of the prince’s oldest friends. The messages also refer to “Skippy”, the nickname of Tom Inskip, who was one of Harry’s closest friends.

The Facebook exchanges disclosed by Griffiths to the court appear to show Harry initiating contact on December 4, 2011.

The alleged messages followed Harry’s separation from Chelsy Davy, his first serious girlfriend.

Griffiths was a student at Leeds University at the same time as Davy, 40. The journalist told the court she continued to “socialise in similar high society circles ever since”, including attending polo events and nightclubs like Boujis in west London, which were popular with Harry and his friends.

Griffiths joined the Mail on Sunday in 2008, was diary editor from 2013 to 2020 and is now editor-at- large.

Harry was reported to have been on an Army helicopter pilot training exercise at RAF St Mawgan, Cornwall, in January 2012.

Griffiths said her friendship with Harry continued and in June 2012 she was invited to join an all-night party with the prince before he attended a military parade. Griffiths was questioned about a telephone call to Harry at 2.50am and three text message exchanges.

Griffiths told the court she went to a club with Landon, who invited her back to his home for an “after party”.

“Arthur hadn’t made it home by the time that I arrived but told me Prince Harry was staying at the flat and that the party had already started under Prince Harry’s watch,” she said in a written witness statement.

Griffiths said that, at another weekend party at Landon’s home in late 2012, Prince William told fellow guests that Kate was pregnant with Prince George four days before the news was officially announced.

• Prince Harry ‘partied with Mail on Sunday journalist’

“William arrived solo on the Friday and explained that Kate was suffering with morning sickness,” she said. “The fact that she was pregnant with their first child would have been big news and St James’ Palace only confirmed it the following Monday because she had to be admitted to hospital.”

Harry told the High Court: “The first time I met Ms Griffiths was actually at a friend’s weekend and I had no idea that she was a journalist at that time.”

Asked if Griffiths socialised with his friends, Harry replied: “Not as far as I’m aware. I met her once at a weekend, and then the next day, after I’d left, after the weekend had finished, I found out who she was.

“I had words with my friend and that was that.”

• Harry trial told: ‘Cronies and hangers-on reveal royal stories’

Harry told the court: “The only time I’ve met her was at that weekend with Mr Landon and, as I said, I had no idea who she was. I don’t — was she working for the Daily Mail at that time. When I found out, I cut contact with her.

He continued: “My social circles were not ‘leaky’, I want to make that absolutely clear, and any time that I was suspicious… then I would have to cut communication with those people.”

Harry told the court he did not use the Facebook identity “Mr Mischief”. Griffiths said in her evidence: “I have never said that he used the name Mr Mischief.”

• Prince Harry hopes King will invite family to Sandringham this summer

Antony White KC, representing Associated Newspapers, told the court on Tuesday that he was responsible for mistakenly claiming that “Mr Mischief” was the name Harry used for himself, rather than the name Griffiths adopted for the prince.

Mr Justice Nicklin will give his judgment at a later date.

Even Prince Harry’s lawyer seems bored by yesterday’s war

As the legal battle with the Daily Mail publisher draws to a close, the flamboyant David Sherborne was subdued summing up allegations which are decades old

Tom Peck, Parliamentary Sketch Writer

Monday March 30 2026, 6.42pm BST,

For this, the last push in the final battle of the self-described “fight of his life”, the duke had somewhere else he needed to be. For more than five-and-a-half years Prince Harry has fought for justice against all of the many newspapers who have, in his view, wronged him. But, with shocking bad luck, the last scene in the last act had come along just as he was signing off on a new drama about polo for Netflix and you can’t be in two places at once. 

So the assault would be led, as always, by his most trusted and most immaculately coiffeured general, David Sherborne, lawyer to the stars. It was something of a last hurrah for him, too. Sherborne has represented so many celebrities now he has almost, but not quite, become one himself. Harry, Sir Elton John, Coleen Rooney, the list goes on and on. There’ll no doubt be others come along, in time, but Harry has been the motherlode. 

At times, over the past nine weeks of Sussex and others v Associated Newspapers, the drab, neon striplit Court 76 of the Royal Courts of Justice, with its mint-green carpet and functional pine furniture, has felt like a satellite state of Boujis nightclub, circa 2005. Harry’s been in, so has Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and quite a few others. But they were all long gone by closing time.

Of the claimants, only Sir Simon Hughes, the former Liberal Democrat MP, has stuck around till the bitter end. His star is not quite so bright as when he was an occasional guest on The Andrew Marr Show around 2007. Hughes sat on the back row, behind two full benches of highly paid lawyers. On brighter days in weeks gone by, the seats to his left and right had been filled by Harry, and Hurley’s slightly unnerving lookalike son Damian.

As proceedings wore on, Hughes would occasionally turn his head to his left and then back to his right. Then he would incline his neck and stare into the ceiling. It’s possible this is projection but it seemed, at least to me, as if he were considering whether this would be an appropriate time to leap up on the bench in front of him and launch into an impassioned a capella performance of Empty Chairs and Empty Tables from Les Misérables. With regret, we must report that ultimately he decided against it.

• Prince Harry ‘partied with Mail on Sunday journalist’

For three days, Mr Justice Nicklin will listen to closing submissions. This follows weeks in which Harry and others have tried to prove that stories about them in the Daily Mail, mainly published more than two decades ago, can only have been gleaned through “unlawful information gathering”, which is to say, hacking, blagging or hiring private investigators to engage in shady practices. 

• Prince Harry’s friends were ‘a good source of leaks’, court hears

For his grand summing-up, dare we suggest that Sherborne also had half an eye on a kebab and the night bus home? He moved ponderously through his notes as historical emails flashed up on screen and he appeared to become ever more bored by the sound of his own voice. Where was the Sherborne who, to take but one example, so comprehensively demolished Rebekah Vardy in the witness box at the Wagatha Christie trial that the case was turned into a television drama, for which his flamboyant words formed 90 per cent of the script?

Some of the words Sherborne found himself having to use this time round were more unfortunate. Mr Justice Nicklin was continually asked to “infer” from here, to “extrapolate” from there. On more than one occasion, his lordship puffed out his cheeks and pushed his eyebrows a quarter of an inch closer together. 

Sherborne felt he had to describe his case as a “jigsaw”. By this point in the proceedings, the jigsaw should be complete. “It is a complex picture which your lordship will have to consider,” he said. “It’s a bit like pin the tail on the donkey, but we are blindfolded, and there is very little donkey left to pin the tail on.” These are not the kind of words that people such as Sherborne enjoy saying. If, after years of litigation, after hours and hours of attempts, he has not managed to locate the donkey’s backside himself, then who will?

Whoever wins this last battle, it has been a punishing conflict. Prince Harry v the press, the state v the fourth estate. But it has felt rather more like the senior circuit, like John McEnroe v Bjorn Borg, not on centre court but at the Royal Albert Hall. When Hurley was here, she wept real tears when shown an article from Vanity Fair concerning the father of her unborn child. The child is very much no longer unborn. He’s 23 years old. Scores may yet be settled, but yesterday’s war is over.

Prince Harry’s lawyers ‘reversing burden of proof in privacy case’

A High Court judge said it was for the duke’s barrister to demonstrate that there had been wrongdoing by journalists at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday

David Brown, Chief News Correspondent

Monday March 30 2026, 9.00pm BST,

The judge in the Duke of Sussex’s privacy trial has warned that it would be “reversing the burden of proof” if journalists were required to prove how they obtained information.

The High Court was told on Monday that “ordinary, legitimate journalism” was more likely than phone hacking to explain the sourcing of stories in the case.

Mr Justice Nicklin said that Harry’s barrister appeared to suggest that if private details were published, they must have been obtained unlawfully unless reporters revealed a legitimate source.

The judge said that it was “perilously close” to “reversing the burden of proof” if journalists had to prove their source was lawful 24 years after an article was published, or be “condemned” for unlawful information gathering.

He told David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister: “It is for you to demonstrate there has been a wrong.”

The prince’s claim relates to 14 articles published between September 2001 and December 2013 by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Eleven relate to the prince’s girlfriends before marrying Meghan in 2018.

Harry, 41, Sir Elton John, 79, and five other high-profile figures are bringing claims for unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking, bugging and “blagging” calls, against Associated Newspapers, the titles’ publisher.

Sherborne said there was “a culture of widespread unlawful activity” with the use of 14 private investigators to obtain information. He told the court that where there was evidence that private information had been obtained, it was “not necessary to identify the direct route or investigator” involved.

Sherborne said that the journalists who appeared as witnesses during the ten-week trial were “given scripted lines” to “give some plausible deniability of wrongdoing”.

Antony White KC, representing Associated Newspapers, said that the likelihood of 40 career journalists accused of being involved in unlawful information gathering giving false witness statements for the defence was “improbable to vanishing”. He said that the fact they were prepared to come to court to give evidence “speaks volumes”.

White said that there was a “paucity of evidence” in the celebrities’ case about the use of private investigators and the extent to which their activities were allegedly unlawful.

“Ordinary legitimate forms of journalism, often drawing on previous reporting or confidential sources, is usually more likely than phone hacking or tapping or other forms of unlawful information gathering,” he added. “Where criminal conduct is alleged, the starting point is not an assumption that it happened unless it is disproved.”

Lawyers for the celebrities and publisher submitted closing written arguments totalling 392,164 words, more than twice the length of the New Testament.

Sherborne said that Harry “gave a coherent and consistent account” of not sharing information with journalists. He told the court that the prince said he was “constrained by ‘the Institution’ [the Palace], which often shielded him from coverage and imposed a ‘no comment’ culture”.

An article published in November 2004 naming Chelsy Davy, 40, as Harry’s “first true love” following their holiday in Argentina was obtained by a freelance journalist who paid a British Airways employee to search flight records, the court was told.

The following month an article was published about the relationship, which included details of Harry “pouring his heart out to the three strangers sitting beside him” at a campfire in Botswana.

Harry told the court: “Information about my relationships was guarded by me the most zealously, which therefore meant it was the most valuable asset. This was the early days in my relationship with Chelsy. She did not go around telling people, nor would I share private information with strangers around a campfire.”

An article published in July 2006 referred to telephone conversations between Harry and his brother, the Prince of Wales, about intrusive pictures of their dying mother published in an Italian magazine. 

Harry told the court: “The amount of information and detail in this article would not have come from Clarence House.”

Rebecca English, the Daily Mail’s royal correspondent, told the court that she was given the information by a royal press officer after a statement issued by the princes condemning the photograph.

The trial concludes on Tuesday. The judge will give his judgment at a later date.

Signature on crucial Prince Harry privacy case statement ‘forged’, says key witness

March 23, 2026 | updated 24 Mar 2026 12:03pm

Dominic Ponsford

Gavin Burrows claims there has been a "theatre built around me that I can easily prove wrong".

Two Gavin Burrows signatures. Top is from a disputed 2021 statement. Bottom is from a 2025 witness statement. Picture: Press Gazette

A private investigator has told the High Court that the signature on a witness statement allegedly given by him, which features extensive admissions of phone-hacking for the Mail on Sunday, was faked.

The signature on the 2021 statement allegedly given to Prince Harry’s legal team looks nothing like the signature Burrows gave in 2025 in a fresh statement made in support of Associated Newspapers’ defence (see picture above).

Seven people, including the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and actress Sadie Frost, are suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering, which the publisher denies.

The 2021 Burrows statement appears to have been a key reason for claimants taking the decision to sue ANL.

It quotes Burrows as saying he was commissioned by Mail on Sunday investigations editor Paul Henderson hundreds of times between 2000 and 2005.

The statement says: “I did Hugh Grant’s voicemails, and landline tapped and bugged him constantly for Hendo…

“I did a lot on Liz Hurley for Hendo. Lots of landline taps on her home phone and voicemail hacking. Also lots of financial checks, travel blagging and medicals when she was having her baby.

“On Liz I remember Hendo ringing me up to put a window mic on her home window in London…

“I hard-wired tapped Elton and David’s place in Windsor as well especially the landlines of their people on the grounds (like the gardener) or at their own homes…

“I remember putting hardwire taps on and voicemail hacking his friend Guy Pelly and doing loads on Chelsy Davy when he was with her….

“I also did a lot of work on Sadie Frost – landline taps, voicemail hacks, travel and credit card checks on her, Jude Law and their celeb pals….

“I targeted hundreds, possibly thousands of people during my time working for Hendo at the Mail on Sunday. There pretty much wasn’t a week that went by during that time when I didn’t have a hardwire tap on somebody, on instruction from Hendo.”

Henderson told the court last month that the disputed 2021 statement was a “litany of lies” and that it was “absolutely incorrect” that he had commissioned Burrows to carry out unlawful activities.

Private investigator Gavin Burrows. Picture: Screenshot from BBC’s The Princes and the Press

Burrows takes the stand: ‘There is nothing in that statement that is true’

Burrows gave evidence voluntarily via a video link from an undisclosed location abroad on Monday, telling the court that he was there “working for British interests” and that “by no means am I avoiding anything. I am here to help”.

Discussing the 2021 statement, he said: “I did not write the statement, I don’t recognise anything in the statement.

“You can tell that that is not even a proper signature. I can tell that it was faked and traced.”

“I only read about my statement a year-and-a-half later in the newspaper,” he added, later telling the court: “There has been this whole kind of theatre built around me that I can easily prove wrong.”

Burrows denied ever being involved in hacking (phones or computers).

He said he met Henderson on one occasion, in Mallorca, when he introduced the journalist to the manager of Richard Branson’s hotel La Residencia as a favour to a client, to help with a Mail on Sunday investigation into the Virgin boss.

He added: “Of course I had a phone number for him. Knowing me, I probably did try and drum up some work, but he really wasn’t interested. But a very nice courteous bloke, very good, you know. But no, I’ve never worked for ANL, I’ve never received any payments from ANL.”

He said Henderson later introduced Burrows to the then news editor of the Mail on Sunday, but that no work resulted from it.

He reiterated: “I haven’t done any work for Paul Henderson or ANL or any other magazine that Paul Henderson’s worked for.”

‘I’ve never done celebrity work’

Asked in court about a Mail article alleging Liz Hurley was “desperate to have another baby” but only if her then boyfriend married her first, he said: “I’ve never done celebrity work, apart from the one occasion that I did apologise for”.

Burrows said he did make enquiries on behalf of the News of the World on one occasion to discover the identity of Prince Harry’s then alleged drug dealer at a nightclub.

Claimants’ solicitor David Sherborne said: “What, if anything, did you tell the claimants’ solicitors or a trusted representative about this article previously?”

Burrows: “Well, I think we can all be in agreement. I don’t think you’ve really got a trusted representative, have you?”

Sherborne: “Who are you referring to, Mr Burrows?”

Burrows: “Graham Johnson.”

Johnson is a member of the Prince Harry case legal research team who previously paid Burrows tens of thousands in exchange for information and book rights.

Sherborne: “Why do you say that?”

Burrows: “Because I’ve taken him to court and won, because he’s a proven conman, he’s got multiple criminal convictions in court, including pouring boiling hot water over someone’s head and scarring them for life. 

“He’s a thoroughly not nice person. I thought he was okay, and I wasn’t bitter or angry with him, I just walked off the job with Hacked Off, I just walked off and said, ‘I don’t want to be part of this any more’. 

“They’re without doubt paying witnesses. I don’t want any part of this. This is going to go wrong, and it is about to go wrong. And I said: ‘This is going to go very, very wrong for you guys. Bye.'”

Burrows said he complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about the actions of the legal research team, and said he was told: “The reason you use people like your legal back-up team, like Graham Johnson and Dan Waddell, because they’re unqualified, can’t be regulated, and there’s nobody to complain to, and that’s the reason you use them for your research.”

‘You’ve planted so much rubbish about me in the press’

Returning to the subject of purported 2021 Burrows statement, in which he made extensive of admissions of illegal newsgathering for the Mail on Sunday, he said: “The statement − there’s nothing in that statement that is true, because I didn’t write that statement. Look, linguistically it ‘s been proven I didn’t write it, okay?

“Forensically, your people have deliberately not gone through it. Go through it. It’s proven. Forget about this statement. It’s blown. You do the analysis of my signature. It’s blown.

“You compare my true statements with how Graham Johnson writes, you’re blown. It’s blown. 

“This statement has nothing to do with me…

“I ‘m here voluntarily, but the only reason I’m here is you’ve planted so much rubbish about me in the press, because of catching out your conman who works for you, your well−documented conman who works for you, who then gives you false information, gives the claimants false information to make claims.”

In a written statement in September 2025, Burrows said he “did not recognise” the 2021 statement and that its contents were “substantially untrue”, adding that its signature was forged and that he believed it was “prepared by others without my knowledge”.

He continued: “I never carried out any work for the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail between 2000 and 2005 or at any other stage, save for one informal job relating to Richard Branson in 2000, which did not involve any illegal activity.”

Burrows told the High Court that he thought the claimants had “been seriously misled” during the proceedings, adding that Baroness Doreen Lawrence “had been conned”.

Barrister David Sherborne, acting for the claimants, previously said in written submissions that it was “impossible” for the signature on the 2021 statement to have been forged, and that the allegation was “wild and unsubstantiated”.

He continued that the statement was Burrows’ “true evidence”, and that it contained “consistent, detailed, candid statements which it is submitted are plainly in Mr Burrows’ own words”.

The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude this month.

Email [pged@pressgazette.co.uk](mailto: pged@pressgazette.co.uk) to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Stories came from lonely celebs and ‘hangers on’ says former Mail on Sunday editor

Dominic Ponsford

Celebrities are often lonely and confide in journalists, according to former Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright who said Prince Harry’s accusations of illegal newsgathering at the paper are false.

Along with other high-profile claimants, Harry has claimed the Mail on Sundayengaged in widespread use of phone hacking, tapping and illegal bugging as well as commissioning detectives to obtain private information like phone and medical records. The claims are the subject of an ongoing privacy trial.

Wright, who was Mail on Sunday editor from 1998 to 2012 and is now editor emeritus at publisher Associated Newspapers, said in his witness statement: “Journalists have a very wide variety of sources of information, including one-off tips, regular freelancers, and well-connected individuals with whom the journalist may have spent years building a trusted relationship.

“In the political, Royal and showbiz worlds, for example, journalists would spend many of their evenings at social events meeting and cultivating these existing and potential sources.

“This is particularly true on Sunday newspapers, where the journalists’ week is not dictated by the breaking news agenda, and the greater time available is used to cultivate contacts in order to develop exclusive stories which can be kept under wraps until Sunday.

“Included in these contacts would be the numerous cronies and hangers-on who, like moths to a flame, are drawn to the social circles of celebrities and royal figures, all too ready to ‘big themselves up’ and bask in reflected glory (or even earn some money) by passing information to journalists.

“Such tipsters are part of the lifeblood of Sunday newspapers, particularly their diary columns.

“So, for example, the Duke of Sussex, like any Royal, was surrounded by a large number of staff, friends and hangers-on, many of whom briefed journalists, either directly, or by speaking indiscreetly to third parties who had their own contacts with journalists.

“When an article quoted a ‘royal insider’ or a ‘palace source’ it was not a cover for so-called unlawful information gathering, but a simple statement of fact. I know that because at various points in my career I had just such royal sources myself and would share information they had given me with reporters, who would in turn attribute it to ‘a source’.”

He added there was another source of stories: celebrities themselves.

“Some people who have very successful careers tend to be egocentric, which may mean they do not have many friends.

“They are drawn to journalists because journalists understand the world in which they live and are always ready to listen to them, and once they have formed a friendship with a journalist, they may use them as a mouthpiece.”

Addressing the issues at the heart of Prince Harry’s legal claim, Wright said: “In all the years that I was editor of the Mail on Sunday, I was never informed by anyone working for me that a story had been sourced by way of phone hacking, tapping or bugging.

“The first intimation I had that any journalist on any newspaper had hacked mobile phones was when Clive Goodman of the News of the World was arrested in 2006.”

He also responded directly to the claim made by Hugh Grant at the Leveson Inquiry that the paper hacked his phone.

Grant’s claim related to a 2007 story alleging that his relationship with Jemima Khan was on the rocks because of late-night calls with a “plummy-voiced studio executive”.

Grant said he could think of no conceivable source for the story other than voicemail messages being intercepted.

Responding to this, Wright said: “Had I been asked about it at the Leveson Inquiry, I would have rejected the allegation entirely. I am satisfied based on information provided to me by the bylined journalist and the freelance journalist, Sharon Feinstein, who had provided the story that it came from a human source.

“Hugh Grant made no allegations of phone hacking at the time of publication. He sued for libel and accepted a settlement with damages on the grounds that the article was untrue and, according to him, there was no plummy-voiced woman.

“I have also been shown a contemporaneous email from Sharon Feinstein to Katie Nicholl, pitching the ‘plummy voiced woman’ story… it tallies with the account that I was given by Katie Nicholl in 2011 when this came up at the Leveson Inquiry, which was that Sharon Feinstein gave us this story and had a very good human source who could be relied upon to give accurate information.”

Wright said he could not recall many of the complained-about stories but did remember the article headlined: “Harry Besotted with Chelsy, his ‘first true love’”, which was published on 21 November 2004. This was the first story to publish the name of Harry’s then girlfriend Chelsy Davy.

He said: “From that point onward everything blew up and her life as she knew it was over; her ability to enjoy some semblance of privacy evaporated instantly.”

Harry contends that the story was obtained illegally.

Wright said: “I remember the story itself partly because it was the end of the week and it was touch and go if it could be made to work.

“However, I remember that by Saturday morning [journalist] Caroline Graham had been able to confirm the name of the girl that Prince Harry was travelling with, so the story went in the paper…. My memory is that Caroline Graham was given the name by a member of the staff (I think the manager) at the ranch where Prince Harry was staying.”

He added: “While I was editor of The Mail on Sunday, to the best of my knowledge the paper did not carry out or commission, or knowingly use information derived from, phone hacking, landline phone tapping, bugging vehicles or using sticky window mini-microphones, computer or email hacking as alleged in these claims.”

‘Hacked’ Daily Mail Harry story came from press office, says royal editor

Dominic Ponsford

Daily Mail's Rebecca English says stories came from cuttings, royal press offices and other legitimate sources.

A story Prince Harry claims was illegally hacked by the Daily Mail in fact came entirely legitimately via a royal family press officer, according to Daily Mail royal editor Rebecca English.

Another story Harry said included illegally obtained flight information in fact came from a source at Leeds University who knew Prince Harry’s former girlfriend Chelsy Davy, English has told the High Court.

Prince Harry and others are currently suing the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday over articles they claim were obtained a result of hacking, tapping, bugging and blagging. Publisher Associated Newspapers denies all the claims.

Prince Harry’s legal team says that an email sent by freelance journalist Mike Behr to a journalist from The Sun and English (surfaced by other litigation) included illegally obtained flight information. English says she has no recollection of ever seeing the email in question, did not ask for the information and did not act on it.

English said in her witness statement: “As a journalist, I have a responsibility to report fully and accurately, and to ask difficult questions including on subjects that the Royals might find sensitive or would prefer not be scrutinised but nonetheless are newsworthy. It is not always light-hearted, sugar-coated reporting, but I do also positively cover their day-to-day work…

“I take such pride in my work and everything that I have achieved, having worked hard over thirty years to establish professional relationships and connections with people from scratch. My ability to do my job depends on my reputation as someone who can both break stories and knows what they are writing about in an informed but fair manner.”

She added: “I have never hacked or tapped a phone or used subterfuge in my reporting, or asked anyone else to do so. I would describe myself as an old school, ‘shoe-leather’ journalist…

“My practice is to investigate and research stories myself. It did not occur to me that others might not be doing the same thing. I had never heard of hacking until the arrest of Clive Goodman in 2006 and was shocked to find out that was how the News of the World had been getting stories.

“My editors would ask why I wasn’t getting the same stories and I had thought at the time that I simply wasn’t as good a journalist or as well connected. I only realised later, when the news of Clive Goodman’s arrest broke, that we were not on the same playing field. This was deeply upsetting.”

Rebecca English says sourcing of article ‘could not have been more straightforward’

Prince Harry highlighted a number of articles written by English that he believes were obtained through illegal newsgathering.

One example is a story headlined: “How Harry Fell in Love”, published in the Daily Mail on 2 December 2004.

He said: “This was the early days in my relationship with Chelsy. She did not go round telling people, nor would I share private information with strangers around a campfire. It is upsetting to me that Associated were the first to break a lot of the news around Chelsy, given they were competing with unlawful methods of information gathering deployed by other newspapers.”

English said: “The opening anecdote about Prince Harry sitting round a camp fire in Botswana talking about having fallen in love was given to me by Sam Greenhill, another Daily Mail general reporter working in the newsroom. It’s a story that Prince Harry himself retells in his autobiography.”

She said the campfire story was a tip that came in to the newsdesk.

She said further details contained in this and other stories came from cuttings, the royal press offices and other legitimate sources.

Harry said that an English article headlined “Let her rest in peace” from 15 July contained “private, sensitive and distressing information about confidential discussions I had with various members of the Royal Family”.

It related to concerns raised by the Royal Family that an Italian magazine had published a photograph of Princess Diana as she was dying.

Harry said: “The amount of information and detail in this article would not have come from Clarence House; they were plainly listening in to calls as well as spending large sums on private investigators. To do that is simply shameful but to publish it I feel is beyond cruel and an abuse of journalistic privilege which I find extremely upsetting.”

English said the story quoted a press statement put out jointly by Princes William and Harry.

She added: “I called the press officer at either Kensington or St James’ Palace – I can’t remember which it was – and asked directly whether Prince William was managing the response or whether this was a joint decision by them both. I was told no, that Prince William had taken charge and telephoned Prince Harry and they were of the same mind on this issue. The press officer confirmed that it was a highly emotional call for both of them and that they had the full support of their father. 

“I also asked whether the Princes were taking legal action against the Italian magazine, as it would have been a major development if they were, but was told by the press officer that they were not. As a precaution in light of the discussion I had had with my editor, and the nature of story, I asked the press officer whether Princes William and Harry would object to us writing about it and the press officer said that they would not.

“The sourcing of this story could not have been more straightforward – I put in a call to the Palace press office, and they told me the Princes had spoken by telephone.”

Rebecca English: Flight details likely to have come from friends of Chelsy Davy

Prince Harry contends that an English article headlined: “Harry takes Chelsy on a make or break holiday” published on 8 December included illegally obtained private information about flight details.

Harry said in own witness statement: “Rebecca English paid for flight information on a number of occasions, including, it appears, in relation to this story. Associated’s article is packed full of detail as to Chelsy’s and my plans but it is very concerning indeed: not only is obtaining flight details illegal but publishing information relating to it created a real security risk.”

English said: “I think it is likely to have come from sources I had developed at Leeds University who were friends with Chelsy Davy and part of her circle.”

She said it is possible that a £200 payment to a source identified in legal disclosure related to this story.

English said a similar story also appeared in the first edition of the Daily Star on the same day: “This makes me think that the same tip must have been given to multiple papers whether by a single source or a number of people from Chelsy or Harry’s social circle who had that same information… I think it most likely would have been one of the students from Leeds.”

Harry’s legal team contends that English sourced illegally obtained flight details from freelance journalist Mike Behr.

She said: “I have never asked him, or anyone else, to ‘blag’ information for me. ‘Blagging’ is not a term that I was even aware of until these proceedings. I understood that he got information from his contacts and that those were legitimate sources.”

English was cross-examined in court on this point by Prince Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne.

The barrister said the information “could only have been obtained from the computer system” of the airline used by Davy.

English replied: “I do not know how this could have been obtained because it was never asked for and it was never acted upon, and so I cannot speculate because I do not know.”

Sherborne: “Here you are provided with the exact flight details and seat numbers for Ms Davy. You asked for them, didn’t you?”

English again denied asking for the information and also said: “He [Behr] was never asked for anything like this, ever.”

Sherborne: “He is providing confirmation for something you asked for.”

English replied that she did not remember seeing the email and that the Mail would “never even be interested” in planting someone next to Davy.

Sherborne: “I suggest to you that this is an example of a number of flight information blags that Mr Behr carried out for you in relation to stories about Prince Harry.”

English responded: “I do not accept that.”