5 days ago
17
Elizabeth Hurley has accused the publisher of the Daily Mail of bugging her windowsill as well as using information obtained from tapping her landline as she gave emotional evidence at the high court.
Hurley had to stop several times to compose herself as she recounted how she had been targeted by “deeply hurtful and damaging” articles.
Her claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, relates to 15 articles about her between 2002 and 2011. She is part of a group of seven high-profile figures bringing the claims against the publisher, accusing it of using unlawful information gathering.
In a witness statement submitted to the court, the actor said the unlawful acts against her involved “landline tapping my phones and recording my live telephone conversations, placing surreptitious mics on my home windows, stealing my medical information when I was pregnant … and other monstrous, staggering things”.
“Above all, it was the discovery that the Mail had tapped the landlines of my home phones and tape-recorded my live telephone conversations that devastated me,” she said. “I felt crushed.”
Associated Newspapers has denied any wrongdoing, previously describing the claims as “lurid” and “preposterous”. In written submissions, ANL’s legal team said the allegations brought by Hurley were “unsupported by the evidence before the court”.
It said the “baseless” claims were part of an attempt by the claimants’ research team to create a case against ANL “based entirely on spurious and, or, discredited information”.
The claim over the tapping of lines and bugging comes from a now “disavowed” witness statement from the private investigator Gavin Burrows. Hurley said she was “incensed” by the claims, “the details in it were very painful to read”.
Appearing in court, Hurley said she had wondered if those close to her had been leaking information or whether she had been speaking too loudly and someone had overheard her private conversations.
“There were microphones on the windowsill of my dining room,” she said. “Yes, there were leaks, but they were not from my friends.”
However, Antony White, the lead barrister for ANL, suggested that the information in the articles in her claim were obtained by lawful means and sources who passed on the information.
He put it to Hurley that people did leak information about her “openly to the press and to journalists”.
White presented a series of articles in which he said Hurley’s friends were quoted by name, and others in which information was sourced back to friends. He also pointed to articles in which Hurley had spoken about her relationships and her pregnancy.
However, Hurley, who had to compose herself several times during her appearance as she talked about wanting to protect her son, said the quotes from named friends were sanctioned and uncontroversial.
She said that their named quotes and her own in interviews were “benign” and did not give away private information.
White also said some of the articles relating to the late Steve Bing, the father of her son, Damian, could have come from Bing himself or his “camp”. Hurley said “it could have been provided by Steve Bing”, but that it was now impossible to ask him.
Hurley is a member of a group of seven people bringing the claims against the publisher. The court has already heard evidence from the Duke of Sussex, who alleged it had hacked phones and blagged information about him and those close to him.
The other claimants are Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, the campaigner Doreen Lawrence, the former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes and the actor Sadie Frost.
Prince Harry appeared in the court to observe the proceedings. He has so far attended all four days of the trial. A spokesperson for the duke said he was there “to support, and show solidarity with, the other claimants”.
In written submissions, the publisher said stories were obtained “entirely legitimately from information variously provided by contacts of the journalists responsible, including individuals in the Duke of Sussex’s social circle, press officers and publicists, freelance journalists, photographers and prior reports”.
White said that other than a now “disavowed” witness statement from Burrows, the allegations of phone hacking and tapping were “wholly inferential”.
A key part of ANL’s case is that the claimants have waited too long before bringing a case. The claimants argue that they learned they had a serious case against the publisher after the October 2016 cutoff date for legal action.
White repeatedly pushed Hurley that she could have made inquiries before that date if she had been concerned about ANL’s activities – and must have been aware she could have had a case.
Hurley said she did not keep up to date with Hacked Off and maintained she only learned about serious allegations in relation to ANL later.
The trial continues.
