Harry denies having ‘leaky’ social circles in battle with Daily Mail publisher

The Duke of Sussex has told a court he does not have “leaky” social circles, as he insisted he was unable to complain about press coverage because of the royal institution.

In a frosty exchange between Harry and lawyers acting on behalf of Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the duke told the High Court: “My social circles were not leaky, I want to make that absolutely clear.”

He added that if he became suspicious of someone, “I would have to cut contact with this person”.

The duke, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, politician Sir Simon Hughes, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley are all bringing legal action against ANL over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

This includes claims that information for articles was obtained by carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as phone tapping and “blagging” private records.

ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims.

In his witness statement for the trial, Harry said he has always had an “uneasy relationship” with the press, adding: “However, as a member of the institution the policy was to ‘never complain, never explain’.”

Speaking from the witness box at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Wednesday, Harry told the court: “When you are in a situation like this, the moment something private is out, your circle of trust and knowledge decreases over time.”

He added: “The stuff in these articles is not the kind of stuff I would talk about openly.”

The duke said it would have been “impossible to complain” about certain stories because “thousands” of articles were being written about him by newspapers.

He added: “If you complain, they double down on you, in my experience.”

The duke insisted he did not complain about some of the articles at the centre of his claim “because of the institution I was in”.

Antony White KC, for ANL, said the duke “did not complain and no complaint was made on your behalf” about articles Harry was aware of, adding: “That is because you believed, at the time that the articles were published, insofar as you saw them, that the information they contained came from legitimate sources.”

The duke replied: “To a certain extent, but I would not have been able to complain about them anyway, because of the institution I was in.”

One of the stories complained about by Harry concerned “confidential discussions” he had after a photo of a dying Diana, Princess of Wales was published in the Italian press – an article he described as “beyond cruel”.

In his written evidence, Harry described an article published in the Daily Mail in July 2006 as “really disgusting”, saying he was having private discussions with his brother, the now-Prince of Wales.

Other articles concerned his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy – with Harry telling the court he was “really worried something bad was going to happen” when he was in a relationship with her.

He said in written evidence: “I was never suspicious of Chelsy in relation to stories like this, but I was of her friends. If I saw this story at the time, I would have been very frustrated and angry.

“I would have questioned how Associated found out this information. But, at the same time, I would have felt like I had to accept this as the reality of my life.”

Before his evidence to the court began, a source close to the duke accused ANL of “game-playing and dirty tricks” by failing to inform the court their opening argument would “last less than two hours”.

The source continued: “They think that by pulling the schedule forward 24 hours they are giving Prince Harry less time to prepare – he’s been preparing for this moment for the last three years.

“Safe to say, he’s ready.”

In response, an ANL spokesperson said: “Prince Harry has been in London since the weekend ready to give evidence in this case, which he launched three-and-a-half years ago.

“We don’t intend to dignify this briefing by the other side with any further comment.”

The trial is due to conclude in March, with a judgment due in writing at a later date.