- 11 minutes ago
Dispatches - Season 2025 Episode 9 -
The Prince vs the Paper - Harry, Hacking & The Mail
The Prince vs the Paper - Harry, Hacking & The Mail
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00...paper is in the High Court next month.
00:02It's really a titanic struggle between two powerful segments in our society.
00:08Determined to hold the press to account following the hounding of him, his wife and his mother.
00:14The press themselves have incited so much hatred towards myself, my wife and even our children.
00:19Prince Harry is now going head to head with the mail.
00:23But the case is based in part on the word and the work of self-confessed hackers and criminals.
00:28So they asked you to listen in to my voice messages.
00:32It was instruction, it was an order.
00:35And as a key witness says his statement has been forged, is the case now on a knife edge?
00:41So this really has put a spanner in the works for Harry and the rest of the claimants.
00:45The Daily Mail stands accused of serious crimes.
00:49It seemed absolutely sensational.
00:50They were alleging not only phone hacking, but the bugging of landline phones and premises.
00:54And now another central figure tells dispatches claims about his involvement are wrong.
01:01Well, they're going to have to rethink that and their legal team is going to have to rethink that.
01:04Well, that blows a hole in the case against the mail, doesn't it?
01:07The judge faces questions about the reliability of the evidence after claims that people in Harry's team offered payment for information.
01:15Could this be one fight too far for Harry?
01:24If that collapses, then Harry's got egg all over his face, really.
01:28But the paper still has to explain its relationship with journalism's dark arts.
01:32I don't accept that this is evidence that our journalists are actively behaving illegally.
01:37It'll all be decided in a showpiece trial early next year.
01:41Harry is taking action with six other well-known faces.
01:45With both sides committed to having their day in court, the judge's call will have huge repercussions.
01:51Whichever way it goes, it's going to be enormously significant.
01:54Harry!
01:58Harry!
02:00Harry!
02:01Harry!
02:04A legal case involving Prince Harry and the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper has been back at the High Court today.
02:15The Prince is one of a number of high-profile figures claiming private information about them was gathered unlawfully by methods like phone hacking.
02:23In print, it's the Prince versus the paper.
02:26Behind the headlines, there's way more to the story.
02:29For the last five years, Harry has been the renegade Prince.
02:38Cast out from the firm and doing what no other royal would do,
02:43taking his battles with the press over phone hacking and intrusion to the High Court in outspoken comments like this.
02:50This wasn't just the individual people.
02:53This went right up to the top.
02:54This was lawyers.
02:55This was high executives.
02:57Harry is buoyed by the substantial payouts he's won from the Sun and the Mirror.
03:02Now there's only weeks left until the Prince goes to trial again,
03:06this time with six other famous faces to take on Associated Newspapers,
03:11the publisher of the Mail and Mail on Sunday, in a huge case dubbed the Superclaim.
03:18It's Harry's latest battle in the war he's waged against the tabloids over phone hacking and other illegal tactics.
03:25The case is set to cause a media frenzy, with Harry's fellow claimants against the Mail,
03:31including Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence,
03:36mother of murdered teenager Stephen.
03:38The stakes couldn't be higher.
03:42British journalism is on trial in this case.
03:47These lawsuits are tactics of a much wider strategy of trying to hold the press to account,
03:52that all of this sort of coalition of determined celebrities are part of.
03:56Harry's legal claim against the Mail goes back to the 2000s when he was dating Chelsea Davey.
04:03He accuses the paper of hacking and bugging their phones
04:06to get hold of private information about their relationship.
04:12Harry has identified articles in the paper which he claims appeared as a result of hiring private investigators
04:19who used illegal tactics to gather information.
04:23The Mail denies all allegations it's accused of.
04:27Proving specifics in those cases, which in a lot of cases date back 20 or even 30 years, is going to be quite a task.
04:35But Harry's appetite for holding the papers to account is undiminished.
04:41He's made no secret that he blames a toxic media culture for his mother's death.
04:46Prince Harry sees himself as St George slaying the dragon of illegal activity by the press.
04:55So his mother, he saw a victim of press intrusion.
04:59He thinks that his whole life he has been a victim of press intrusion.
05:03As photographers gathered outside Prince Harry's school,
05:07a rising chorus of complaint was beginning to make itself heard about the behaviour of the press.
05:11He's shown that he wants to settle a score with the British press.
05:17And so he's launched this wave of attacks in court and now he's going for the Mail.
05:23The Mail has been very clear from the beginning.
05:25It says these are preposterous allegations and they are fighting them.
05:29You know, they're going to see Harry in court.
05:34Cases against the Mirror and the Sun came after police investigations.
05:37But this claim against the Mail is different.
05:42The police haven't been called in.
05:44No journalist has confessed.
05:47We've taken a look behind the headlines.
05:49For over a year, we've pored over pages and pages of court documents.
05:53And we've come across serious concerns about the way the evidence was gathered and its reliability.
06:01Many previous victims of phone hacking have won payouts after suffering untold harm.
06:07The idea that one's telephone would be routinely hacked and recorded,
06:14that conversations which were private would be reported in the newspapers, these are horrific crimes.
06:21It's very clear the corrosive, toxic effect it has on people, whether they're famous or not.
06:26But for all of them, it's had a terrible effect and you can see it.
06:31Public sympathy has been with the victims, including celebrities.
06:35They very nearly ruined my life.
06:38I have certainly seen how they have ruined the lives of others.
06:41But with payouts in settlements from the Sun, the News of the World and the Mirror Group,
06:47estimated to have exceeded a billion pounds, it's also created an industry of its own.
06:54There absolutely is a gravy train in this.
06:56I mean, there's an enormous incentive for anyone who suspects that they might have had their phone hacked
07:00or other unlawful activities undertaken against them by journalists back in the day to bring a court case.
07:06These are high-stakes cases and it means the fees are also huge.
07:09You could almost say it's a legal gold rush.
07:14For his case against the Mail, Harry is supported by a man with a controversial past.
07:19Graham Johnson, a former tabloid journalist and convicted phone hacker,
07:25who is one of three key members of Harry's legal research team.
07:30Johnson spent ten years working for the tabloids
07:33and has talked very openly about the dark side of their work in a BBC documentary.
07:38Blackmail, fraud, deception, you coerced people into giving stories.
07:45Everyone is a bit scared of you because you've got the power to destroy the lives.
07:52Whilst working at the Sunday Mirror, he hacked the phone of soap star Denise Welsh.
07:57Johnson came clean to police years later, only after they'd started making arrests.
08:03So they asked you to listen in to my voice messages?
08:07It was instruction. It was an order.
08:10The culture of a tabloid newspaper is high pressure.
08:13Get it quickly, get it cheaply, and if you don't get it, you're down the road.
08:18Johnson received a suspended sentence for the phone hacking in 2014
08:22and afterwards he got a taste for tell-all confessions.
08:26Graham Johnson, come on out here.
08:28Revealing he was sacked from the News of the World
08:31for faking a story about discovering the mythical beast of Bobman in Cornwall.
08:36We knew it didn't exist, so we went to Dartmouth Zoo.
08:41We took a picture of a puma.
08:43Since his conviction for phone hacking,
08:46Johnson has reinvented himself as a poacher turned gamekeeper.
08:50So Graham Johnson has been a kind of evangelist
08:52against his former colleagues and his former career
08:55and dedicated himself to exposing what he says was a criminal conspiracy
08:59at the heart of tabloid newspapers.
09:04We have uncovered and proved...
09:06Johnson was called to give evidence by the legal team
09:09in Harry's case against the Mirror in 2023.
09:12The judge broadly found that my evidence was correct.
09:18But in this case against the Mail,
09:20Graham Johnson has been doing more than giving his own evidence.
09:23He's been involved in finding it too.
09:29Over the years, Johnson says he's paid law-breaking journalists
09:33and private detectives, he says,
09:35for book deals and information for articles
09:37published on a journalistic website, Byline Investigates.
09:42So welcome to Byline Investigates.
09:44Today I'm going to talk about organised crime at the Mirror.
09:47Information from the people he paid has also ended up being used
09:52to make the case against the Mail,
09:54something the paper's defence team is making a big play of.
09:58The Mail's lawyers will make hay with some of the information
10:04about Graham Johnson in particular,
10:08having been convicted of hacking.
10:11There's high stakes here.
10:12Graham Johnson, in his role as editor of Byline Investigates,
10:15has been responsible for turning up
10:17and bringing to the lawyer's attention
10:18an awful lot of the evidence which is being used in this case.
10:22And that has become quite controversial
10:23in the way that the case is being conducted.
10:27In 2020, Graham Johnson published a story on Byline
10:31about an alleged hacking of Sir Simon Hughes,
10:33the former Lib Dem MP.
10:36Evan Harris, previously director of the press reform group Hacked Off,
10:40and another key member of Harry's legal research team in this case,
10:44wrote Sir Simon an email in July 2019,
10:47copying in Graham Johnson.
10:51The Mail says the email shows Sir Simon was told
10:54the Byline article would help get around the legal time limits
10:57for bringing a claim against them.
10:59The email said,
11:00To deter the Mail from arguing limitation,
11:04i.e. you knew about this six years ago,
11:06Atkins-Thompson think it best for stories to be written in Byline,
11:10which can be referred as the basis for claims being raised.
11:15Sir Simon Hughes told dispatches,
11:18I was not in a position to bring legal proceedings
11:20against Associated Newspapers Ltd until early 2022,
11:25which is when I obtained for the first time
11:27the relevant facts and evidence
11:29to provide me with sufficient confidence
11:31to embark on legal proceedings
11:33and to believe that I had a worthwhile claim
11:36against Associated Newspapers.
11:38He rejected any implication that he acted,
11:41planned to act,
11:42or discussed any plan
11:44to disguise or camouflage
11:45the state of my awareness
11:47of Associated Newspapers' wrongdoing.
11:51Dr. Evan Harris' lawyer told dispatches
11:54that we were making
11:55highly selective use of a single document
11:58without its context,
12:00and that the apparent implication
12:02that Dr. Harris was encouraging Sir Simon
12:04to make false claims
12:06as to his date of knowledge
12:07of unlawful information gathering
12:09by Associated Newspapers
12:11appears to be an allegation
12:13of serious criminal wrongdoing
12:14and is false.
12:16The email in question
12:17simply sets out,
12:18in informal language,
12:20Dr. Harris' understanding at that time
12:22that the date of Sir Simon's
12:24having knowledge of these matters
12:26and potentially that he had a claim
12:28would likely be around the point
12:29at which the allegations
12:30of unlawful information gathering
12:32by Associated
12:33was published by Byline Investigates.
12:37Coming up...
12:38He offered some high rewards,
12:40whether the information
12:41was factual or not.
12:44Do Harry's claims against the mail
12:46depend on evidence gathered
12:47using cash inducements?
12:50It could be £2,500 a month,
12:53if not...
12:53Prince Harry is due back
13:03at the High Court next month
13:04for his latest battle
13:06against the UK press.
13:07I've felt it personally
13:08over the years.
13:10He's developed a long-term distrust
13:12of the tabloids.
13:13I learned from a very early age
13:16that the incentives of publishing
13:18are not necessarily aligned
13:20with the incentives of truth.
13:24Dispatches has been carefully
13:25examining the case
13:26against the mail,
13:27brought by Harry
13:28and six other high-profile figures.
13:32That means going back
13:33over two decades
13:34to when tabloids sold big
13:36and journalists often turned
13:38to the shadowy industry
13:39of private investigators
13:41to get stories.
13:42The use of a private investigator
13:44by a newsroom
13:44is not in itself
13:45evidence of anything
13:46illegal or unlawful.
13:48And the mail admitted
13:49back in 2007
13:50that they had used investigators.
13:52The mail had used
13:54a private investigator
13:55called Steve Whittemore,
13:57who's been exposed
13:57for obtaining
13:58the private numbers
13:59of celebrities
14:00and also murder victims.
14:03Paperwork discovered
14:04when he was arrested
14:05showed journalists
14:06that the mail used him
14:07more than any other paper had.
14:12I swear by almighty God
14:18that the evidence...
14:19At the Leveson inquiry
14:20into the ethics
14:21of the British press,
14:22the then mail editor,
14:24Paul Dacre,
14:25made an admission.
14:26But from what we know now,
14:27I would accept
14:28there was a primal facing case
14:29that Whittemore
14:31could have been acting illegally.
14:33I don't accept
14:34that this is evidence
14:35that our journalists
14:36were actively behaving illegally.
14:40For Harry and the other
14:42claimants in this case,
14:43the key is getting evidence
14:44from private detectives
14:46that the mail
14:47was commissioning them
14:48to gather private information
14:50illegally.
14:51How are you feeling,
14:52Prince Harry?
14:54There are invoices
14:55showing Whittemore
14:56and other private investigators
14:58were working for the mail
14:59around the time
15:00articles were published
15:02about the claimants.
15:04So the task
15:05that Prince Harry
15:06and the rest of the claimants
15:08and their legal team
15:08have got ahead of them
15:09is proving
15:10that work that was undertaken
15:11by private investigators
15:12was unlawful.
15:15Which brings us back
15:17to a key figure
15:17working with
15:18the legal research team
15:20representing the Prince,
15:21the former tabloid journalist
15:23and convicted phone hacker,
15:25Graham Johnson.
15:27Dispatches have been talking
15:28of private detectives
15:29who say they were
15:30approached by Johnson
15:31to provide information
15:32about their dealings
15:33with the mail.
15:34What emerged is a tale
15:36worthy of any tabloid expose
15:38with claims of big money payouts
15:40and catastrophic fallouts.
15:43Some of that information
15:44is now being fed into the case
15:46against the paper.
15:47One private eye
15:53who says Johnson
15:54contacted him
15:55is notorious.
15:58Jonathan Rees.
15:59His private detective agency
16:01earned hundreds of thousands
16:02of pounds
16:03from the news of the world
16:04before the paper
16:05was shut down.
16:07In 2000,
16:09Rees was sentenced
16:10to seven years
16:11in prison
16:11for perverting
16:13the course of justice
16:14in a scheme
16:15where drugs
16:15were planted
16:16in a woman's car
16:17in order to discredit her
16:19in a custody battle.
16:22Rees claims
16:22Graham Johnson
16:23came to him
16:24around seven years ago
16:25offering to pay
16:26for stories
16:27that could implicate
16:28the tabloids
16:29including the mail.
16:32He offered
16:32some high rewards
16:33whether the information
16:35was factual
16:36or not.
16:38You say he offered
16:39you high rewards.
16:40I mean,
16:41tell us how explicit
16:42he was about that.
16:43Well,
16:43it could be
16:44two and a half thousand
16:45pounds a month
16:46if not more
16:48for life.
16:51For life?
16:51For life.
16:52And you said
16:53he didn't mind
16:54whether what you told him
16:55was true or not.
16:56Not interested.
16:58But what did he say
16:59explicitly to you
17:00on that point?
17:00It was that
17:01as long as
17:02the statements
17:03that I made
17:04and because
17:06of my history
17:08and my connections
17:08with the newspaper
17:09it would add
17:10more credence
17:11to
17:12them
17:14through solicitors
17:16providing
17:18backup and information
17:19for the claimants
17:21and other celebrities.
17:23But it didn't matter
17:24what I said
17:26but if I signed
17:28the statement
17:28they would use it.
17:30And he was clear
17:32with you
17:32that what you told him
17:34would be used
17:35in a court action?
17:36Yes.
17:38He couldn't provide
17:39any proof
17:40of Johnson's offer
17:41but did
17:42Reece say
17:42he accepted it?
17:44Two and a half thousand
17:45pounds a month
17:46for life.
17:47How did you react
17:48to that kind of money?
17:49I wasn't interested.
17:51Tell us why not.
17:52I'm
17:52wise enough
17:55and old enough
17:56to realise
17:58that I'm not
18:00going to sign
18:00a untruthful
18:02statement
18:02for Graham
18:04or for anybody
18:05at all
18:07that would support
18:08them in legal action.
18:10We only have
18:11Jonathan Reece's word
18:12this ever happened
18:13but we've spoken
18:15to another
18:16private investigator
18:17Graham Johnson
18:18reached out to.
18:19This private investigator
18:21told us
18:22he can't be interviewed
18:23for legal reasons.
18:25He claims
18:25Johnson
18:26also offered
18:27him money
18:27to help
18:28with the case
18:28against the mail
18:29and other papers.
18:32Gavin Burrows
18:33has been suspected
18:34of hacking
18:34for the tabloids
18:35over a ten year period.
18:39He says
18:40he was contacted
18:40in 2020
18:41by Graham Johnson
18:42who wanted
18:43to speak to him
18:44about his investigation
18:45into unlawful
18:46information gathering
18:47by the tabloids.
18:51Just under a year
18:52after the two men met
18:53this appeared.
18:55A 21 page statement
18:56which page after page
18:58detailed the serious
19:00allegations against
19:00the mail.
19:02Gavin Burrows
19:02was now blowing
19:03the whistle.
19:06The statement
19:07says the mail
19:07on Sunday
19:08was one of Burrows'
19:09biggest and most
19:10regular clients
19:11and it says
19:13his list of targets
19:14includes Prince Harry,
19:16Elizabeth Hurley,
19:17Sadie Frost,
19:18Sir Elton John
19:19and David Furnish.
19:21He admits
19:22to a variety
19:23of unlawful activities
19:24such as putting
19:25a mic on Hurley's window.
19:27hard wiretapping
19:30the Windsor home
19:30of Elton John
19:31and helping
19:33to blag
19:33the flight details
19:34of Prince Harry's
19:35then-girlfriend
19:36Chelsea Davie.
19:38In her statement,
19:40Elizabeth Hurley
19:40said Burrows'
19:41revelations
19:42deeply upset
19:43and troubled her
19:44and Elton John
19:45said he was
19:46outraged.
19:49The Burrows'
19:50revelations
19:50reached the public
19:51figures in question
19:52and the superclaim
19:53was born.
19:54Six of the seven
19:59claimants
20:00cite evidence
20:01from Burrows.
20:02That first witness
20:03statement of Gavin
20:03Burrows appeared
20:04to confess to
20:04all sorts of
20:05misbehavours
20:05on behalf
20:06of the Mail
20:06and Mail
20:06on Sunday.
20:07I mean,
20:07bugging cars
20:09and houses
20:10and all sorts
20:11of things.
20:11A long,
20:12significant statement
20:14apparently with
20:15Gavin Burrows'
20:15signature at the
20:16end of it
20:16and including
20:17a sign-off
20:19by a lawyer
20:20that this had
20:21been all done
20:21properly.
20:22Around this
20:25time,
20:26journalist Michael
20:26Gillard began
20:27investigating the
20:28case against
20:29the Mail.
20:30He started
20:31talking to
20:32Gavin Burrows
20:32who made
20:33some striking
20:34claims about
20:35his dealings
20:35with Graham
20:36Johnson.
20:38We've digitally
20:39altered
20:39Gillard's
20:40appearance
20:40because of
20:41threats from
20:41organised crime
20:42unrelated to
20:43this film.
20:44The Gavin
20:45Burrows I spoke
20:46to was only
20:47too happy
20:47to explain
20:48how he
20:50and Graham
20:50Johnson
20:51had got
20:51together
20:52the amounts
20:52of money
20:53that had
20:54been promised
20:54him.
20:57Burrows
20:58says Johnson
20:59agreed to
20:59pay him
21:00a retainer
21:00of £5,000
21:01a month
21:02to compile
21:03evidence
21:04for legal
21:04claims
21:05against
21:05the
21:05newspapers.
21:09Separately,
21:10Burrows
21:10claimed Johnson
21:11also put
21:12a £25,000
21:13book deal
21:13on the table
21:14to publish
21:15his memoirs
21:16about working
21:16with newspapers.
21:22Gillard
21:22recorded a
21:23conversation
21:23with Burrows
21:24in 2023
21:25for an
21:26article.
21:36Burrows
21:37claimed
21:37Johnson
21:38floated
21:38an idea
21:39getting paid
21:40to sign
21:41a witness
21:41statement.
21:43He was
21:44very serious
21:44he put
21:44across the
21:45table
21:45and he
21:46said
21:46would you
21:46sign
21:47the
21:47document
21:47for
21:47even
21:48£3,000
21:48and I
21:50said
21:50what do
21:50you
21:51mean?
21:51He
21:51said
21:51I
21:51just
21:52need
21:52a
21:52pre-written
21:52document
21:53to sign
21:53£3,000
21:54and then
21:56after about
21:5640 seconds
21:5730-40
21:58seconds
21:58pause
21:59into
21:59sluggers
22:00he said
22:00oh
22:01only joking
22:01let's
22:02think
22:02like that
22:03I thought
22:03oh
22:04okay
22:04alright
22:04but it was
22:05a bit
22:05weird
22:05by this
22:08time
22:09I'd heard
22:09a lot
22:09of
22:09allegations
22:10of
22:10similar
22:11evidence
22:12from
22:12other
22:13PIs
22:13suggesting
22:14that
22:14this
22:14was
22:14a
22:15modus
22:15of
22:15brandi
22:16of
22:16Graham
22:16Johnson
22:17and
22:18the
22:18picture
22:18then
22:19does
22:19become
22:19alarming
22:20Graham
22:23Johnson
22:23and
22:24Gavin
22:24Burrows
22:24his
22:25relationship
22:25ended
22:26in
22:26acrimony
22:26in a
22:27later
22:28legal
22:28dispute
22:28Johnson
22:29said
22:29Burrows
22:30his
22:30work
22:30was
22:30poorly
22:31researched
22:32and
22:32inadequate
22:33now
22:33it
22:34will
22:34be
22:34left
22:34to
22:34the
22:34judge
22:35who
22:35has
22:35said
22:35Burrows
22:36remains
22:36a
22:36very
22:36important
22:37witness
22:37to
22:38decide
22:38on
22:39his
22:39reliability
22:39they
22:42are
22:42only
22:42allegations
22:43and
22:43Graham
22:44Johnson
22:44makes
22:44counter
22:45allegations
22:45but
22:46the
22:46point
22:46is
22:47this
22:47this
22:48is
22:48the
22:48investigator
22:49for
22:49the
22:50claim
22:50and
22:51this
22:51is
22:51the
22:51inquiry
22:52agent
22:52for
22:52the
22:52claim
22:53falling
22:53out
22:54and
22:54calling
22:54each
22:55other
22:55liars
22:56accusing
22:56each
22:57other
22:57of
22:57assault
22:58I
22:58mean
22:58at
22:59what
22:59point
23:00does
23:00this
23:00not
23:00become
23:01a
23:01pantomime
23:01we've
23:07looked at
23:07questions
23:08about the
23:08reliability
23:09of those
23:09gathering
23:10evidence
23:11in this
23:11case
23:11coming up
23:14how Prince
23:15Harry
23:15alerted a
23:16grieving
23:16mother
23:17to
23:17allegations
23:18that the
23:18mail
23:19illegally
23:19bugged
23:20her
23:20I
23:21like
23:21to
23:22see
23:22it
23:22in
23:22the
23:22Daily
23:22Mail
23:23apologised
23:24and a
23:24public
23:24apology
23:24for what
23:26they've
23:26done
23:26is
23:27the
23:27man
23:27behind
23:28this
23:28high
23:28stakes
23:29claim
23:29against
23:29the
23:30mail
23:30now
23:30changing
23:31his
23:31story
23:32Dory
23:33Lawrence's
23:33witness
23:34statement
23:34is
23:34based
23:35on
23:36your
23:36confirmation
23:37that
23:37you
23:38had
23:38done
23:38the
23:39bugger
23:39well
23:39they're
23:39going
23:39to
23:40rethink
23:40that
23:40and
23:41their
23:41legal
23:41team
23:41is
23:41going
23:41to
23:42rethink
23:42that
23:42there's
23:43a
23:43lot
23:43at
23:43stake
23:43in
23:44that
23:44part
23:44of
23:44the
23:50Prince
23:59Harry's
24:00legal
24:00action
24:01against
24:01the
24:01mail
24:01is
24:02his
24:02third
24:02in
24:02as
24:03many
24:03years
24:04the
24:05press
24:05themselves
24:05have
24:06incited
24:06so
24:06much
24:06hatred
24:07towards
24:08myself
24:08my
24:09wife
24:09that's
24:10hard
24:10to
24:10forgive
24:11the
24:14stakes
24:15are
24:15high
24:16for
24:16Harry
24:16when
24:17he
24:17arrives
24:17and
24:18gives
24:18evidence
24:18the
24:19risk
24:20for
24:20him
24:20if
24:20he
24:20loses
24:21is
24:21that
24:21it
24:21just
24:21will
24:22reinforce
24:23how
24:23he
24:24is
24:24characterised
24:25by
24:25much
24:25of
24:26the
24:26British
24:26media
24:27I
24:28could
24:28really
24:28build
24:28this
24:29picture
24:29of
24:29Harry
24:29as
24:29a
24:30bit
24:30of
24:30a
24:30petty
24:30prince
24:31but
24:32despite
24:32the
24:33high
24:33stakes
24:33Harry
24:34made
24:34the
24:34fight
24:35against
24:35the
24:35mail
24:36even
24:36bigger
24:37he
24:40was
24:40the
24:40one
24:40that
24:40tipped
24:40off
24:41Baroness
24:41Lawrence
24:41she
24:42might
24:42have
24:42a
24:42claim
24:42against
24:42the
24:43mail
24:43which
24:44is
24:44when
24:44she
24:44joined
24:44this
24:50Doreen
24:52Lawrence's
24:52son
24:53Stephen
24:53was
24:53brutally
24:54murdered
24:54on the
24:55streets
24:55of
24:55South
24:56London
24:56in
24:56April
24:571993
24:58days
25:01pass
25:01then you
25:02realise
25:03that
25:03it's a
25:04completely
25:05different
25:05thing
25:06that
25:07Stephen
25:07was a
25:07black
25:08boy
25:08and
25:09the
25:10interest
25:11was not
25:11there
25:12the
25:14Daily
25:14Mail
25:14later
25:15became
25:15a
25:15close
25:16ally
25:16of
25:16the
25:16Lawrence
25:17family
25:17there
25:18was
25:18a
25:18personal
25:19link
25:19between
25:19Paul
25:19Dacre
25:20the
25:20then
25:21editor
25:21of
25:21the
25:21Daily
25:21Mail
25:22and
25:23Stephen
25:24Lawrence's
25:24family
25:24before
25:25Stephen
25:25was
25:26murdered
25:26because
25:28Neville
25:28Stephen's
25:29father
25:29was employed
25:30as a
25:30decorator
25:31at
25:31Paul
25:32Dacre's
25:32house
25:33so the
25:33Daily
25:33Mail
25:33became
25:34the
25:34biggest
25:34advocates
25:35and
25:36supporters
25:36of
25:37the
25:38Lawrence
25:38family
25:38and
25:39quite
25:39rightly
25:40received
25:40a lot
25:41of
25:41praise
25:41for
25:41that
25:41in
25:441997
25:45the
25:45Mail
25:46took
25:46an
25:46unprecedented
25:47step
25:47putting
25:48pictures
25:49of
25:49five
25:49men
25:50they
25:50believed
25:50to be
25:50responsible
25:51for
25:51Stephen's
25:52killing
25:52on the
25:53front
25:53page
25:54I
25:56think it's
26:00fair to
26:01say
26:01the way
26:02it acted
26:02in the
26:03Stephen
26:03Lawrence
26:03case
26:04and stood
26:05up to
26:05the people
26:06it accused
26:07of murdering
26:07Stephen
26:08Lawrence
26:08was
26:10exemplary
26:11it was
26:11it was
26:11an
26:11astonishing
26:12thing
26:13for
26:13the
26:13mail
26:14for
26:14any
26:14newspaper
26:15just
26:16to
26:16put
26:17five
26:17people
26:18on the
26:18front
26:18page
26:19and say
26:20that they
26:20were
26:20murderers
26:21and it
26:22did see
26:22tangible
26:23results
26:23two of
26:25those men
26:26have since
26:26gone to
26:27prison
26:27it kept
26:28that case
26:29in the
26:29public eye
26:30in a way
26:30that
26:30might not
26:32otherwise
26:32have
26:32happened
26:33according
26:35to court
26:36documents
26:36Doreen
26:37Lawrence
26:37was
26:37alerted
26:38to
26:38potential
26:39claims
26:39she might
26:39have
26:40against
26:40the
26:40mail
26:40by
26:41a
26:41message
26:42from
26:43Prince
26:43Harry
26:44after
26:46being
26:46provided
26:47with
26:47more
26:47information
26:48she
26:48decided
26:49to
26:49sue
26:49the
26:50newspaper
26:50in
26:502022
26:51I'd like
26:53to see
26:53the
26:53Daily
26:53Mail
26:54apologise
26:55and a
26:55public
26:55apology
26:56for what
26:57they've
26:57done
26:58the fact
26:59that we
26:59as a
26:59family
27:00have
27:00been
27:00going
27:00through
27:00so
27:01much
27:01and
27:02they've
27:03added
27:03to
27:03the
27:03trauma
27:03The
27:06Mail
27:07describes
27:07all
27:08allegations
27:08of
27:08unlawful
27:09information
27:10gathering
27:10in relation
27:11to
27:11Doreen
27:11Lawrence
27:12as
27:12appalling
27:13and
27:13utterly
27:14groundless
27:14smears
27:15I would
27:16imagine
27:16that when
27:16those
27:17particulars
27:17of claim
27:18came in
27:18in Doreen
27:18Lawrence's
27:19case
27:19it was
27:20an absolute
27:20devastation
27:21for Paul
27:22Dacre
27:22that's his
27:23personal
27:23reputation
27:23and the
27:24reputation
27:24of the
27:25paper
27:25and everything
27:26he holds
27:26dear
27:26is at
27:27stake
27:27Dispatches
27:30has seen
27:30the statement
27:31submitted
27:31by the
27:32Baroness
27:32in it
27:33she claims
27:34private
27:34investigators
27:35have admitted
27:36tapping
27:36her landline
27:37hacking her
27:38voicemails
27:39and bugging
27:40a cafe
27:40where she
27:41used to
27:41hold
27:41meetings
27:42she says
27:43lawyers had
27:44told her
27:44the information
27:45about her
27:45had accidentally
27:46surfaced
27:47through a
27:47conversation
27:48between two
27:49private
27:49investigators
27:50who worked
27:51for the
27:51mail
27:51gavin
27:53burrows
27:54and jonathan
27:56reese
27:56i was
27:58staggered
27:59by the
28:00possibility
28:00that jonathan
28:01reese
28:01was going
28:02to be
28:02put forward
28:03as a
28:03witness
28:03of truth
28:04in a
28:04claim
28:05brought
28:05by
28:06doreen
28:06lawrence
28:06against
28:07the
28:07mail
28:07and i
28:08picked
28:09up
28:09from my
28:10sources
28:10that one
28:11question
28:12was being
28:12asked
28:13how
28:14trustworthy
28:14is jonathan
28:15reese
28:15jonathan
28:19reese
28:20remember
28:20is the
28:20man
28:21who
28:21was
28:21sent
28:21to
28:22prison
28:22for
28:22seven
28:22years
28:23for
28:23perverting
28:24the
28:24course
28:24of
28:24justice
28:25in a
28:26scheme
28:26where
28:26drugs
28:26were
28:27planted
28:27in a
28:27woman's
28:28car
28:28he
28:30agreed
28:30to speak
28:30to us
28:31about
28:31what
28:31had been
28:32said
28:32about him
28:32in the
28:33statement
28:33from
28:33doreen
28:34lawrence
28:34a
28:35statement
28:35that
28:36references
28:36a
28:36daily
28:37mail
28:37journalist
28:37named
28:38stephen
28:38wright
28:39so
28:40doreen
28:40lawrence's
28:41witness
28:41statement
28:41says
28:42and i'll
28:42just
28:42quote
28:43it
28:43to you
28:43jonathan
28:44reese
28:45confirmed
28:45he had
28:46done
28:46things
28:46for
28:46the
28:46daily
28:47mail
28:47and
28:47stephen
28:48wright
28:48aimed
28:48at
28:49secretly
28:49stealing
28:50information
28:50about
28:50me
28:51and
28:51the
28:51investigations
28:52into
28:52stephen's
28:53murder
28:53so
28:54did you
28:55ever
28:56confirm
28:56all of
28:57that
28:57yes
28:57that's
28:58exactly
28:59what
29:00i'd
29:01heard
29:02and i
29:03knew
29:03what
29:03was
29:04on
29:04offer
29:05i'd
29:05been
29:06offered
29:06by
29:06other
29:07agents
29:07to
29:09assist
29:10in
29:10this
29:11surveillance
29:13but i
29:13didn't
29:14get
29:14involved
29:14so reese
29:16told us
29:16he did
29:16not get
29:17involved
29:17in the
29:18alleged
29:18bugging
29:18of
29:19doreen
29:19lawrence
29:19we
29:20asked
29:21him
29:21if
29:21his
29:21position
29:22conflicts
29:22with
29:22what's
29:23in
29:23her
29:23court
29:23statement
29:24but
29:24doreen
29:25lawrence's
29:25witness
29:25statement
29:26is
29:26based
29:27on
29:27your
29:28confirmation
29:29that
29:29you
29:29had
29:30done
29:31the
29:31bugging
29:32operation
29:32they
29:32have
29:32to
29:32rethink
29:33that
29:33and
29:33their
29:33legal
29:34team
29:34have
29:34to
29:34rethink
29:35that
29:35listen
29:36well that
29:36blows a hole
29:37in the
29:37case against
29:38the
29:38mail
29:38doesn't
29:38it
29:39if
29:39they've
29:39got to
29:39rethink
29:39that
29:40not
29:41really
29:42because
29:42it was
29:43done
29:44all i can
29:45say to
29:46support that
29:46woman
29:47is
29:48yes
29:48i did
29:49hear
29:49about
29:50it
29:50yes
29:51i was
29:51invited
29:52to be
29:52a part
29:53of
29:53the
29:53team
29:53yes
29:54i did
29:54see
29:55factual
29:56transcripts
29:57i know
29:57it was
29:58going on
29:59i know
29:59that the
30:00surveillance
30:00teams
30:01were being
30:02used
30:02against
30:04her
30:04and the
30:04family
30:04but i
30:06can't
30:07provide
30:07any
30:08documentary
30:09evidence
30:09for that
30:10he's
30:12creating
30:13a massive
30:13gap
30:14between
30:14what he
30:15said
30:15and what
30:15he's
30:16saying
30:16now
30:16as
30:17this
30:17litigation
30:18becomes
30:18more
30:19real
30:19and we
30:19head
30:20towards
30:20trial
30:20in
30:21january
30:21next
30:22year
30:22there
30:23are
30:24also
30:24questions
30:24about
30:25reese's
30:25possible
30:26motives
30:26in
30:26relation
30:27to
30:27the
30:27mail
30:27reese
30:28has
30:29always
30:29named
30:29former
30:30daily
30:30mail
30:31crime
30:31reporter
30:31steven
30:32wright
30:32as
30:33being
30:33involved
30:34for
30:35years
30:35wright
30:35has
30:36written
30:36about
30:36rumors
30:37surrounding
30:37reese
30:38and
30:38the
30:38murder
30:39of
30:39reese's
30:39business
30:40partner
30:40some
30:42people
30:42might
30:42think
30:42you've
30:42got
30:42a
30:43grudge
30:43against
30:43the
30:43mail
30:44and
30:44steven
30:45wright
30:45because
30:45of
30:45what
30:45he's
30:46written
30:46about
30:46you
30:47not
30:48at
30:48all
30:49my
30:50grudge
30:51was
30:51against
30:51the
30:52police
30:52not
30:53against
30:53steve
30:54wright
30:54steve
30:54wright
30:55didn't
30:56arrest
30:56me
30:56or
30:57i
30:57don't
30:58bear
30:58any
30:58grudge
30:59against
30:59steve
30:59right
31:00reese
31:01maintained
31:02throughout
31:02his
31:03interview
31:03that
31:03the
31:03mail
31:04did
31:04pay
31:04private
31:05detectives
31:05to
31:06investigate
31:06doreen
31:07lawrence
31:07but
31:08he has
31:08offered
31:08no
31:09proof
31:09and
31:10no
31:10evidence
31:11that
31:11the
31:11mail
31:11knowingly
31:12commissioned
31:13illegal
31:13information
31:14gathering
31:14i
31:15think
31:15wright
31:16would
31:16have
31:16been
31:16foolish
31:17to
31:17sit
31:17down
31:17with
31:18the
31:18private
31:18detectives
31:18and
31:19say
31:19bug
31:20their
31:20telephones
31:20bug
31:21that
31:21cafe
31:22plant
31:23those
31:23devices
31:24on
31:24every
31:24single
31:25table
31:25in
31:25the
31:26cafe
31:26bug
31:27their
31:27home
31:27do
31:28the
31:28surveillance
31:28on
31:29them
31:29it
31:29would
31:30have
31:30been
31:30an
31:31open
31:31request
31:32for
31:33information
31:33here
31:34you are
31:35chaps
31:35go
31:36and get
31:36as much
31:37information
31:38on this
31:38family
31:39we want
31:39to know
31:39who they
31:40are
31:40where
31:41they're
31:41from
31:41it's
31:41all about
31:42proof
31:42as well
31:42isn't
31:43it
31:43do
31:44you
31:44think
31:44now
31:44that
31:45the
31:45mail
31:45did
31:46anything
31:47illegal
31:47no
31:54in
31:58court
31:58concerns
31:59about
31:59the
31:59reliability
32:00of
32:00Jonathan
32:01Reese
32:01and
32:01what
32:01he
32:02says
32:02in
32:02relation
32:02to
32:03the
32:03alleged
32:03bugging
32:03of
32:04Doreen
32:04Lawrence
32:04will
32:05no doubt
32:05be a
32:06key
32:06issue
32:06for the
32:07judge
32:07to
32:07grapple
32:07with
32:08and
32:10that
32:10is
32:10far
32:10from
32:11the
32:11only
32:11complication
32:12the
32:12judge
32:12will
32:12face
32:13just
32:14last
32:14month
32:14a
32:15sensational
32:15statement
32:16by
32:16private
32:17detective
32:17Gavin
32:18Burroughs
32:18was
32:18made
32:19public
32:19remember
32:21Burroughs'
32:22first
32:22statement
32:22which has
32:23always been
32:23central
32:24to
32:24Harry's
32:25claim
32:25it
32:26made
32:27shocking
32:27allegations
32:28the
32:28Daily
32:28Mail
32:29had
32:29hired
32:29Burroughs
32:30to
32:30bug
32:31and
32:31hack
32:31into
32:31Harry
32:32and
32:32his
32:32friends
32:32private
32:33lives
32:34where
32:34last
32:35month
32:35Burroughs
32:36dropped
32:36a
32:36bombshell
32:37Daily
32:38Dispatches
32:39please
32:39in a
32:41dramatic
32:41day
32:42just
32:42weeks
32:42before
32:42the
32:43trial
32:43starts
32:43the
32:44court
32:44heard
32:44that
32:45Burroughs
32:45had
32:45issued
32:45a
32:46new
32:46statement
32:46denying
32:47he'd
32:47ever
32:47carried
32:48out
32:48any
32:48illegal
32:49activity
32:49for
32:49the
32:49mail
32:50and
32:51said
32:52previous
32:53one
32:53was
32:54a
32:54fake
32:54in
32:56this
32:57news
32:57statement
32:58Burroughs
32:58said
32:59I do
32:59not
33:00recognise
33:00the
33:00earlier
33:01witness
33:01statement
33:02of
33:0216th
33:02August
33:032021
33:04and
33:05I
33:05believe
33:05that
33:05my
33:05signature
33:06on
33:06that
33:06document
33:07is
33:07a
33:07forgery
33:08Gavin
33:09Burroughs
33:10has
33:10completely
33:10dropped
33:11a
33:11bombshell
33:11on
33:11Harry's
33:12case
33:12he has
33:13now
33:13claimed
33:14that
33:14that
33:14note
33:15in
33:15which
33:16he
33:16alleged
33:16the
33:16wrongdoing
33:17has
33:17been
33:17forged
33:18that
33:19he
33:19didn't
33:19sign
33:20that
33:20so
33:21this
33:21really
33:22has
33:23put a
33:23spanner
33:23in the
33:24works
33:24for
33:24Harry
33:24and
33:24the
33:25rest
33:25of
33:25the
33:25claimants
33:25it's
33:27a
33:27sensational
33:27claim
33:28and
33:29obviously
33:29various
33:30legal
33:31teams
33:31will want
33:32to test
33:32that
33:32in
33:32court
33:33if
33:33they
33:34can
33:34but
33:34you have
33:35to say
33:35at this
33:36stage
33:36it's
33:36pretty
33:36devastating
33:37for one
33:37of
33:37your
33:38key
33:38witnesses
33:39a
33:39former
33:39private
33:40investigator
33:40to say
33:41that
33:41entire
33:42statement
33:42was
33:42made
33:43up
33:43Burroughs'
33:46news
33:47statement
33:47could
33:47affect
33:48the
33:48evidence
33:48for the
33:49claims
33:49of six
33:50of the
33:50seven
33:51high-profile
33:51figures
33:52taking
33:52on the
33:53male
33:53including
33:54Harry
33:54so
33:56where
33:56could
33:57this
33:57leave
33:57the
33:57prince
33:58one
34:01thing
34:01about
34:01prince
34:01Harry
34:02he's
34:02quick
34:03tempered
34:03he
34:04I think
34:05can rush
34:05to judgment
34:06at times
34:07so
34:08his judgment
34:09will be on
34:10trial in this
34:10case as well
34:11and it may
34:12backfire on him
34:13it may
34:19affect his
34:20attempts to
34:22reconcile with
34:23his family
34:23and it may
34:25damage his
34:26ability
34:27to reconcile
34:29with the
34:29nation
34:30coming up
34:37dispatches
34:39reveals the
34:39identities of
34:40those who have
34:41funded research
34:42into the
34:42mail
34:43if you want
34:45to do an
34:45investigation
34:46investigate the
34:47phone hacking
34:48computer hacking
34:49harry says
34:59he's paid a
35:00high price for
35:01his high court
35:01showdowns in
35:02this revealing
35:03interview
35:04anything i say
35:05about my
35:05family results
35:06in a torrent
35:08of abuse
35:08from the
35:08press but
35:09you know
35:10i'm doing
35:10this i'm doing
35:12this for my
35:13reasons
35:13tensions are
35:15rising with
35:16just weeks to
35:17the trial a
35:18central witness
35:19has claimed his
35:20statement about
35:20illegal activity
35:21by the mail
35:22was made up
35:23and his
35:23signature forged
35:24this has led
35:27to questions in
35:27court about the
35:28reliability of the
35:29evidence and how
35:30it's been gathered
35:31by graham johnson
35:32the convicted
35:33phone hacker and
35:34key member of
35:35harry's legal
35:36research team
35:37dispatches has
35:39been looking into
35:39who's been funding
35:40graham johnson's
35:42work
35:42allegations about
35:45phone hacking at
35:46the mail were
35:47voiced very publicly
35:48at the leveson
35:49inquiry in 2011
35:50by actor hugh
35:51grant
35:52i cannot for the
35:56life of me think
35:56of any conceivable
35:58source for this
35:59story in the mail
36:00on sunday except
36:01those voice messages
36:03on my mobile
36:04telephone
36:05the mail's then
36:06editor responded to
36:07the movie star's
36:08claim with a robust
36:09denial
36:10our witness statements
36:11have made clear
36:12that society does
36:14not involve in
36:14phone hacking
36:15grant became a
36:18leading activist
36:19for hacked off
36:20the group campaigning
36:21for greater reform
36:22of the tabloids
36:23we're making this
36:24film for channel
36:25four
36:25and in this
36:26revealing documentary
36:27he spoke of a
36:28challenging uphill
36:30battle
36:30the truth is
36:31we're the
36:32david taking on
36:34a terrifying
36:35goliath of
36:36huge newspaper
36:38groups
36:38to help with
36:41that battle
36:42hugh grant
36:42turned to the
36:43very man who'd
36:44once done the
36:44dirty work of
36:45the newspapers
36:46he was trying
36:46to take on
36:47graham johnson
36:48we've seen
36:51evidence to
36:51suggest that
36:52just two months
36:53after johnson
36:53was given a
36:54suspended jail
36:55sentence for
36:55phone hacking
36:56he met hugh
36:57grant in
36:58chelsea
36:58an upmarket
36:59area of
37:00london
37:00the pair
37:02apparently
37:02discussed
37:03rumors that
37:04male journalists
37:04had used
37:05illegal methods
37:06to obtain
37:07stories
37:08dispatches
37:11have seen
37:11a draft
37:11invoice from
37:12johnson to
37:13one of
37:13grant's
37:14companies
37:14underarm
37:15dated a
37:16month after
37:16this meeting
37:17it's for
37:18over a
37:18thousand pounds
37:19and for
37:20investigative
37:20research
37:21hacktoff said
37:23in a 2023
37:24statement
37:25neither it
37:26nor hugh
37:27grant have
37:28ever employed
37:28or used the
37:29services of
37:30graham johnson
37:31whether directly
37:32or indirectly
37:33in respect of
37:34evidence gathering
37:35activities for
37:36litigation of
37:37any kind
37:37so we asked
37:39grant about the
37:40invoice from
37:41johnson
37:41he told
37:42dispatches
37:43in 2015
37:44graham johnson
37:45asked me to
37:46help fund
37:46research into
37:47reports that
37:48daily mail
37:48journalists had
37:50offered payments
37:50to ian huntley
37:51subsequently
37:52convicted of
37:53the murder
37:53of two young
37:54girls at
37:55soham
37:55if the
37:56research had
37:57established the
37:58truth of these
37:58reports it would
37:59have been a
38:00matter for the
38:00police not the
38:01civil courts
38:02i have never
38:03used the
38:04services of
38:04graham johnson
38:05whether directly
38:06or indirectly
38:08for evidence
38:09gathering for
38:09litigation of
38:10any kind
38:11dispatches has
38:14also seen a
38:14document apparently
38:15written by
38:16graham johnson
38:17it mentions
38:18leads he's
38:19following with
38:19the potential to
38:20envelop the
38:21daily mail in
38:22class action
38:23litigation
38:23it's dated
38:262016 and
38:27what's interesting
38:28is this document
38:29appears to be for
38:30people funding
38:31graham johnson's
38:32investigations
38:33so who was
38:35funding johnson
38:36one private detective
38:39johnson approached
38:40says wealthy
38:41backers were
38:42involved
38:42obviously
38:44mosley would be
38:46paying the bill
38:47max mosley
38:48max mosley
38:49he was clear about
38:50that was he
38:51graham johnson
38:51very very clear he
38:53was funding it
38:54that's max mosley
38:58former formula one
38:59tycoon and son of
39:00infamous british
39:01fascist oswald and
39:04before his death in
39:052021 he had every
39:07reason to fund
39:08research on the
39:09tabloid press you
39:12could say max mosley
39:13was desperate to give
39:14the tabloid papers a good
39:16beating
39:16does the panel think
39:18it's fair that the
39:19super rich and privileged
39:20can buy protection for
39:21their reputations when
39:23they stray like randy
39:24tomcats
39:25max mosley
39:27oh dear
39:29i thought that was
39:32going to be me
39:33the news of the world
39:37accused mosley of
39:38enjoying nazi themed
39:40sadomasochistic
39:41orgies
39:41max mosley was
39:43pictured at a
39:44private
39:45sex party
39:46in
39:47west london
39:48there were uniforms
39:49involved but they
39:50weren't nazi uniforms
39:52mosley won a famous
39:54privacy case in
39:552008
39:56but this turned into a
39:58bigger campaign to
39:59restrict press
40:00intrusion into private
40:01lives
40:02in any country
40:04cannot be right
40:05that the media can
40:07destroy your privacy
40:08the daily mail later
40:10unearthed a racist
40:11election pamphlet that
40:13he'd published in 1961
40:15i've never been a
40:17racist i'm not a
40:18racist never will be a
40:19racist mosley saw the
40:20mail story as an
40:21attempt to shift the
40:22focus from their alleged
40:24hacking practices
40:25i mean producing this
40:26now 56 years later
40:29and trying to distract
40:31from the daily mail and
40:32their activities if you
40:34want to do an
40:34investigation investigate
40:36the phone hacking
40:37computer hacking
40:38max mosley was very keen to
40:41keep the activities of the
40:43daily mail under scrutiny
40:44now dispatches has found
40:49evidence to suggest that
40:50since mosley's death his
40:52money has funded
40:53johnson we've seen
40:55financial records which
40:57reveal that a company set
40:58up by max mosley gave a
41:00business loan of five
41:01hundred and sixty five
41:02thousand pounds to graham
41:03johnson's publishing
41:04company yellow press yellow
41:08press published these
41:09memoirs of some of the
41:10witnesses who've provided
41:12information cited in harry's
41:14legal claim
41:15we've unearthed more
41:20information about who may
41:21have been paying for graham
41:22johnson's work before he
41:24joined harry's legal team
41:25investigations by dispatches
41:29suggest another extremely
41:30wealthy figure may have been
41:31funding graham johnson's
41:33research into the mail the
41:35father of a man with a very
41:36public grudge against the
41:38paper i have got legally
41:40obtained an orgy of evidence
41:43of you hacking phones
41:44medical records i will make
41:46sure there is so much noise
41:48okay that you have to be
41:50investigated okay meet
41:52controversial former coke addict
41:54playboy james stunt
41:56once married to petra ecclestone
42:00daughter of formula one boss
42:02bernie and with a conviction
42:03for racially aggravated
42:05harassment stunt has a long
42:07history of making headlines in
42:08the mail the paper questioned
42:10where his money came from and
42:12how rich he really was in 2016
42:16the police raided the mayfair
42:18offices of his gold bullion firm
42:19and other premises and arrested
42:2112 people on suspicion of money
42:23laundering he was later acquitted
42:25days earlier james's brother and
42:29business partner had died in a
42:31drug overdose james's father jeff
42:34made an unsuccessful complaint to
42:36the press regulator saying the
42:38mail intruded into their grief
42:40do you think after my brother i
42:42didn't put an army of people
42:44after you okay james stunt publicly
42:47threatened revenge on the mail and
42:49its owner lord rothermere i'm going
42:51to bring you down a house of cards
42:53documents seen by dispatches suggest
42:57that jeff stunt funded graham johnson's
42:59investigation into the mail
43:00one memo from johnson refers to an
43:05update about the daily mail
43:07the memo also refers to the stunt
43:11phase of this long-running
43:12investigation and describes the work
43:14undertaken as a result of your funding
43:17we asked james's father jeff stunt whether he'd funded graham johnson's investigations into the paper
43:25jeff stunt's lawyers told us that the apparent claim that he funded research into illegal activities at the daily mail as some kind of revenge is false and misconceived and that he had funded research into whether he and his family members had been subject to a
43:43jnl's unlawful information gathering activities but has never funded research into illegal activities at the daily mail for the purposes of the present claims
43:55graham johnson did not respond to our letter setting out the matters raised about him in this film
44:00the solicitor for evan harris told us however that graham johnson is part of the claimants research team and that any work done in furtherance of this litigation has been done subject to legal advice on the rules of evidence and any suggestion that witnesses have been paid for making any claims in witness statements is categorically rejected
44:13he also said that all the things we were reporting as said by jonathan reese and gavin burrows about graham johnson were defamatory
44:28when harry heads back to court next month some will argue he's driven by hatred of the press and lifelong anger about his mother's death as revealed in this forthright interview
44:45this is a david versus goliath situation the davids are the claimants and the goliath is this vast media enterprise
44:55i think the royal family are very uncomfortable about it and they're particularly uncomfortable at the thought of their own relationships with the media being brought up as part of any evidence
45:06they've done their best to try to distance themselves from harry
45:10dispatches has looked at questions about the reliability of the evidence in his case against the mail with payments to witnesses cited and claims of faked statements
45:21this is potentially one of the biggest court cases that will occur in 2026 and therefore a huge story
45:28love you harry
45:30the trial could mark a watershed moment in british legal and public life
45:35the question that hangs over this is how much is about suing over potential unlawful things that went on many years ago
45:42and how much of it is coming from a sort of crusade against the press
45:45whichever way it goes it's going to be enormously significant
45:51so where does all this leave us after months of claims and counterclaims the judge now has a tough call
45:58it's down to him to cut through it all
46:00prince harry versus one of the country's biggest newspaper groups whatever the ruling it's set to send shockwaves through the palace the press and the public
46:12the attorney's were called and he's stating that this is his name of the law
46:16as a church all the way off pete and he's not having an opinion of the law
46:17but the plan is not a very successful man
46:19and he sucks when it comes from a private it's not a very successful man
46:20and he pays off on the way off
46:23and he's not a happy person
46:24and in person
46:25it's not a very successful man
46:27and he pays off
46:29and he pays off
46:31and he pays off
46:34his, you know,
46:35he pays off
46:37and he pays off
Be the first to comment