Britain's Prince Harry gives evidence in his privacy lawsuit against the publisher of The Daily Mail, at the High Court in London, January 21, 2026, in this courtroom sketch. Julia Quenzler / REUTERS

Prince Harry struck a combative tone as he testified Wednesday in his lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail and insisted that his latest legal battle with Associated Newspaper Ltd. was "in the public interest."

Harry and six other prominent figures, including Elton John and actor Elizabeth Hurley, allege that the publisher invaded their privacy by engaging in a "clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering" for two decades, attorney David Sherborne said. The celebrities allege that the company illegally spied on them by hiring private investigators to hack their phones, bug their cars and access private records. Testimony from several private investigators, who have said they worked on behalf of Associated Newspapers, is set to be used in the trial.

Associated Newspapers Ltd. has denied the allegations, called them preposterous and said the roughly 50 articles in question were reported with legitimate sources that included close associates willing to inform on their famous friends.

Harry said in his 23-page witness statement that he was distressed and disturbed by the intrusion into his early life by the Mail and its sister publication the Mail on Sunday, and that it made him "paranoid beyond belief." Harry also alleged that the lives of "thousands of people" were "invaded" by Associated "because of greed."

"There is obviously a personal element to bringing this claim, motivated by truth, justice and accountability, but it is not just about me," Harry said in a written statement unveiled as he entered the witness box. Under the English civil court system, witnesses present written testimony, and after asserting that it's the truth are immediately put under cross examination. "I am determined to hold Associated accountable, for everyone's sake ... I believe it is in the public interest."

A heated cross examination
Harry, dressed in a dark suit, held a small Bible in his right hand in London's High Court and swore to "almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." After the Duke of Sussex said he preferred to be called Prince Harry, he acknowledged that his 23-page statement was authentic and accurate.

Defense lawyer Antony White, in a calm and gentle tone, began to put questions to Harry to determine if the sourcing of the articles, in fact, had come from royal correspondents working their sources at official events or from friends or associates of the prince. Harry said that his "social circles were not leaky" and disputed suggestions that he had been cozy with journalists who covered the royal family.

Harry suggested that information had come from eavesdropping on his phone calls or having private investigators snoop on him. He said journalist Katie Nicholl had the luxury to use the term "unidentified source" deceptively to hide unlawful measures of investigation.

"If you complain, they double down on you in my experience," he said in explaining why he had not objected to the articles at the time.

As a soft-spoken Harry became increasingly defensive, White said: "I am intent on you not having a bad experience with me, but it is my job to ask you these questions."

Eventually, Justice Matthew Nicklin intervened in the tense back-and-forth and told Harry not to argue with the defense lawyer as he tried to explain what it's like living under what he called "24-hour surveillance." Nicklin also reminded Harry that he does not "have to bear the burden of arguing the case today."

At another point in his cross examination, Harry appeared close to tears as he said tabloids had made his wife Meghan's life "an absolute misery." Harry has previously said persistent press attacks led to the couple's decision to leave royal life and move to the U.S. in 2020.

Harry's media crusade
For decades, Harry has had what he called an "uneasy" relationship with the media, but kept mum and followed the family protocol of "never complain, never explain," he said.

The litigation is part of Harry's self-proclaimed mission to reform the media that he blames for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris.

He said "vicious persistent attacks," harassment and event racists articles about Meghan, who is biracial, had inspired him to break from family tradition to finally sue the press.

It is Harry's second time testifying after he bucked House of Windsor tradition and became the first senior royal to testify in a court in well over a century when he took the stand in a similar, successful lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mirror in 2023.

Last year, on the eve of another scheduled trial, Rupert Murdoch's U.K. tabloid publisher NGN agreed to pay Harry "substantial damages" for privacy breaches, including phone hacking.

This trial is expected to last nine weeks and a written verdict could come months later.

"If Harry wins this case, it will give him a feeling … that he wasn't being paranoid all the time," Royah Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times and a CBS News contributor, told CBS News on Monday. "If Harry loses this case, it's huge jeopardy for him, not just in terms of cost, but in terms of pushing all the way to trial and not seeking to settle. So we have to wait and see, but it's high stakes for Harry."

Source