Le prince Harry displayed a combative spirit this Wednesday before the High Court in London, during his testimony in the legal action he has initiated against the publisher of the Daily MailThe Duke of Sussex has firmly rejected insinuations that he has maintained close relationships with journalists specializing in the royal family or that members of his entourage have passed personal information to the tabloid press.
"My social circles weren't sieves."he stated, on the occasion of the third and final phase of this legal procedure targeting the British media.
His curt tone during cross-examination, as well as his repeated attempts to describe what he calls a life under "continuous monitoring"led the judge to intervene and ask him not to debate directly with the defense lawyer.
"You do not have to bear the burden of the case's arguments today."Judge Matthew Nicklin reminded him, facing a visibly tense prince.
Accusations of illegal information collection
Prince Harry and six other public figures, including Elton John and actress Elizabeth Hurley, accuse Associated Newspapers Ltd. of violating their privacy by allegedly using illegal methods of collecting information systematically and for a prolonged period of nearly twenty years.
The publisher of Daily Mail He vigorously contests these accusations, calling them absurd. He maintains that the fifty or so articles in question were based on legitimate sources, including relatives or professional contacts willing to speak about the lives of famous people.
A feeling of paranoia in the face of media intrusion
In a 23-page written statement submitted to the court, Harry explains that he was deeply affected by the repeated intrusion of the Mail: and Mail on Sunday in his youth. He claims that this media pressure made him "Paranoid beyond measure."
In accordance with English civil procedure, his testimony was submitted in writing before he was immediately subjected to cross-examination. Dressed in a dark suit, the prince took the oath while holding a Bible and swore to say "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."He confirmed the accuracy and authenticity of his statement, specifying that he wished to be designated as "Prince Harry."
A tense exchange with the defense
Defense lawyer Antony White questioned Harry to determine whether the published information actually stemmed from illegal practices or simply from the classic work of royal correspondents relying on their networks at official events.
As the hearing progressed, the prince appeared increasingly defensive. The lawyer assured him that he had no intention of making the exchange unpleasant, while emphasizing that his role was precisely to ask these questions.
Harry claimed that some of the information could only have come from wiretaps or surveillance conducted by private investigators. He also accused some journalists of using the "unidentified source" designation to cover up what he considered illegal investigative methods.
"In my experience, when you complain, they become even more aggressive."he explained to justify the lack of opposition at the time the articles were published.
A long-standing and conflicted relationship with the press
The Duke of Sussex described a relationship " hard " with the media for decades, claiming to have long respected the unspoken rule of the royal family to "Never complain and never justify yourself."
According to him, the repeated attacks targeting his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, marked a turning point. He stated that the media harassment, aggressive articles, and some racist publications directed at Meghan, who is biracial, had prompted them to step down from their royal duties and move to the United States in 2020.
A major legal battle against tabloid practices
Harry presents this legal action as part of a wider fight to reform press practices, which he holds partly responsible for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in 1997 in a car crash in Paris while being pursued by paparazzi.
This is Prince Harry's second court appearance. In 2023, he became the first senior royal to testify in court in over a century, in a similar case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror.
The current trial is expected to last approximately nine weeks, and the court's written decision could be issued several months after the hearings conclude.
