The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, delivered emotional and at times defiant testimony in the High Court during his ongoing privacy action against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Appearing under his formal title but insisting on being referred to simply as “Prince Harry” in proceedings, he addressed a series of allegations and defended his decision to pursue legal action against what he described as relentless media intrusion that had profoundly impacted his family.
Central to his evidence was a firm denial that he maintained a “leaky” social circle responsible for feeding stories to the press. Harry insisted that close friends and associates had not betrayed confidences, rejecting suggestions that private information about his life or relationships had come from within his inner circle.
Instead, he attributed much of the unwanted publicity to aggressive journalistic practices, stating that he had brought the privacy claim primarily because the media had “made my wife’s life an absolute misery.” He spoke movingly about the toll this had taken on Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, describing years of scrutiny, false narratives, and harassment that he believed had pushed boundaries far beyond acceptable reporting.
Harry recounted how he felt compelled to “perform” for journalists at official royal events, often under pressure from palace officials who arranged interactions with royal correspondents. He explained that these encounters were presented as part of his duties, requiring him to engage politely and provide access, even when it felt contrived or invasive. Compounding this, he said, was the longstanding royal household mantra of “never explain, never complain,” a principle that had left him unable to publicly counter damaging stories or defend himself and his wife without breaching protocol.
This policy, he argued, created a one-sided dynamic where the media could publish freely while those targeted remained silent, exacerbating the distress caused by inaccurate or intrusive coverage.
Reflecting on his personal history with the press, Harry described an “uneasy relationship” dating back to the tragic death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. He linked the intense media pursuit that contributed to that fatal Paris car chase with the ongoing scrutiny he and his family have faced, suggesting a pattern of behavior that has persisted across decades. The duke emphasized that his legal efforts were not about avoiding accountability but about protecting basic privacy rights and preventing similar harm to others.
In a pointed exchange during cross-examination, Harry categorically denied using a Facebook profile under the pseudonym “Mr Mischief” to contact a female journalist. The allegation, raised by the defense, claimed that the account had exchanged friendly messages and even phone numbers with reporter Charlotte Griffiths, who reportedly moved in similar social circles and had encountered Harry in locations like Ibiza. Harry responded firmly: “I have never used the name Mr Mischief.” He expressed no recollection of such interactions and questioned the reliability of the journalist’s account, particularly given discrepancies in details like claimed meetings.
He maintained that he had no knowledge of any messages exchanged via that profile and dismissed the suggestion as baseless.
The testimony highlighted broader frustrations with tabloid journalism, including what Harry portrayed as a culture of intrusion enabled by powerful publishers. He accused certain outlets of prioritizing sensationalism over accuracy, contributing to a toxic environment that affected not just public figures but their families. His appearance in court marked a rare instance of a senior royal directly confronting media practices in a legal setting, building on previous cases involving phone hacking and unlawful information gathering.
Observers noted Harry’s composure mixed with visible emotion, particularly when discussing the impact on Meghan and their children. The duke’s evidence forms part of a consolidated privacy and data misuse trial involving multiple claimants, where allegations center on alleged unlawful activities by Associated Newspapers journalists. The publisher has denied wrongdoing and maintains that stories were obtained lawfully, often through public sources or consented interviews.
The testimony highlighted broader frustrations with tabloid journalism, including what Harry portrayed as a culture of intrusion enabled by powerful publishers. He accused certain outlets of prioritizing sensationalism over accuracy, contributing to a toxic environment that affected not just public figures but their families. His appearance in court marked a rare instance of a senior royal directly confronting media practices in a legal setting, building on previous cases involving phone hacking and unlawful information gathering.
As proceedings continue, Harry’s statements have reignited debates about press freedom, royal-media relations, and the boundaries of privacy in the digital age. Supporters view his candor as courageous, while critics argue it reflects ongoing sensitivities. Regardless, the High Court testimony stands as a significant chapter in Prince Harry’s public battle to reclaim control over his narrative and shield his family from what he sees as unjustified suffering. The case remains ongoing, with further evidence and closing arguments expected to shape its outcome and potential implications for media accountability in the UK.
