Actress and model Liz Hurley broke down in tears multiple times as she gave evidence at the High Court in her legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail. She testified about alleged unlawful information gathering including landline tapping, surreptitious microphones on her home windows, and stolen medical records during her pregnancy. ANL strongly denies all allegations.
Hurley's claims against The Mail relate to 15 articles published between 2002 and 2011. In her witness statement to the High Court, she detailed the alleged violations: «The Mail's unlawful acts against me involve 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 with Damian, and other monstrous, staggering things.»
The Duke of Sussex attended the court proceedings on Thursday, departing shortly before 12:45 pm. Seven claimants are bringing cases against ANL in this trial, which is expected to conclude in March with a written decision following later.
"The ultimate violation of privacy"
Hurley described her emotional response upon discovering the alleged surveillance. «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 stated in her witness statement. «I had not come across this brutal invasion of privacy in either of my two battles with the other newspapers. I felt crushed. It represented the ultimate violation of privacy.»
In her testimony, she added: «I was seething when I discovered The Mail did this to me.»
Hurley expressed particular concern for her son Damian, who was present in court during her testimony. «I felt really mortified that my son would be able to read all this stuff one day, and I feel really bad that that day is today when all this stuff is being regurgitated again,» she said. «Yet again, everyone's privacy is being invaded in this terrible way, and I feel very helpless about that.»
"Intimidating" and "traumatic"
The actress made clear the court process itself was difficult for her. When questioned by David Sherborne, representing the claimants, about ANL denying her claims, she responded: «With all due respect, I don't really want to be here, didn't want to come. I find it intimidating. I find it quite traumatic. I don't really like talking about things that happened to me in the past.» She added: «I find it very painful.»
Hurley emphasized she does not have a vendetta against the press. «I don't have a vendetta against the British press. I don't have a vendetta or hatred of Associated at all, I just feel some bad things went on with some bad people,» she testified, referring to «just some rotten eggs.»
ANL's defense
Antony White KC, representing ANL, described the allegations as «threadbare» in his trial opening. In written submissions, he stated that allegations of unlawful information gathering by Associated's journalists «are unsupported by the evidence before the court.» He presented what he called a «compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing.»
White also questioned Hurley about her connection to media campaign group Hacked Off, suggesting it was «incredible» that her close friend Hugh Grant hadn't kept her informed about emerging evidence. Hurley maintained limited involvement: «I handed over money when I said would. That is, I am afraid, the limit of my involvement.» She testified that she didn't have «any involvement with what my ex-boyfriend, and good friend today, Hugh was involved in with Hacked Off.»
Previous legal battles
Hurley previously won a case against Mirror Group Newspapers, which admitted to hacking her. She was awarded £350,000 in damages, which she donated to Hacked Off in 2016. «They admitted to hacking me, and I was awarded £350,000, and it was a huge gift to Hacked Off,» she testified.
The current trial involves more than 50 articles alleged to be products of unlawful information gathering. ANL maintains the claims are «entirely baseless» and brought too late, arguing the claimants' research team presented a case based on «spurious and, or, discredited information.»
Note: This article was created with Artificial Intelligence (AI).
