Elizabeth Hurley Alleges Home Bugging in High Court Privacy Trial

Elizabeth Hurley gave emotional testimony at the High Court in London on Thursday, accusing the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), of illegally bugging her home and tapping her landline phones to gather information for articles published between 2002 and 2011. Her appearance marks a significant development in a high-profile privacy trial that also involves Prince Harry and other prominent figures, all alleging unlawful information gathering by the publisher.

Hurley, an acclaimed actress and model, recounted how she had been targeted by “deeply hurtful and damaging” articles, leading her to break down in tears several times during her testimony. She described the alleged activities as a “brutal invasion of privacy” and a “violation on a whole different mortifying and enraging scale.” In her witness statement, she alleged that ANL’s unlawful acts included “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.” The discovery of alleged phone tapping, she told the court, was what “devastated me” and left her feeling “crushed.”

Allegations of Invasive Surveillance and Personal Impact

The core of Hurley’s claim against ANL revolves around 15 articles published about her between 2002 and 2011, with additional claims for 10 more articles she believes were based on similar unlawful methods. She highlighted specific instances, such as a story published the day after her son Damian’s birth in 2002, which included intimate details about her hospital stay. Other articles, she noted, focused on payments made by Steve Bing, Damian’s late father, and his refusal to see their son. Hurley emphasized that the alleged surveillance extended beyond phone tapping, stating unequivocally, “There were microphones on the windowsill of my dining room.” The emotional toll of these revelations was palpable, with Hurley expressing that she found it “traumatic” to appear in court and discuss past events.

ANL, for its part, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing. The publisher has previously dismissed the claims as “lurid” and “preposterous,” asserting that the allegations are “unsupported by the evidence before the court.” During cross-examination, Antony White KC, lead barrister for ANL, challenged Hurley’s claims, suggesting that the information in the disputed articles was obtained through lawful means. He pointed to named friends who provided quotes, Hurley’s own interviews discussing relationships and pregnancy, and information that had already been reported elsewhere. White argued that people, including those close to Hurley, had “leaked information about her openly to the press and to journalists.”

Cross-Examination and Contested Sources

Hurley, however, firmly rejected the notion that her friends were the source of the private information. She maintained that quotes from named friends were sanctioned, uncontroversial, and did not constitute “leaks,” describing them as “benign” and not revealing private details. When asked by her barrister, David Sherborne, about the idea of friends giving anonymous quotes, Hurley called it “preposterous,” adding, “They would never ever say anything indiscreet about me.” She conceded that some articles relating to Steve Bing might have come from him or his “camp,” but stressed that it was now impossible to confirm. Despite acknowledging that “there were leaks,” Hurley insisted, “they were not from my friends,” reinforcing her belief in the sophisticated nature of the alleged unlawful information gathering.

A key element of Hurley’s claim, as well as those of other claimants, stems from a now “disavowed” witness statement from private investigator Gavin Burrows. Hurley testified that she learned about Burrows’ statement just before Christmas in 2020 and was “incensed” by its details, finding them “very painful to read.” ANL’s legal team, however, argued that beyond Burrows’ retracted statement, the allegations of phone hacking and tapping were “wholly inferential.” The publisher’s defense also hinges on the argument that the claims have been brought too late, as privacy cases typically have a six-year statute of limitations. Hurley countered this, asserting that she only became aware of the serious allegations against ANL after the October 2016 cutoff date for legal action.

Broader Implications and Celebrity Support

Elizabeth Hurley is one of seven high-profile individuals bringing claims against ANL. This group includes musical icon Elton John and his husband David Furnish, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, and actress Sadie Frost. The trial has garnered significant public attention, particularly due to the involvement of Prince Harry, who has been present in court to show solidarity with his fellow claimants. Prince Harry, who concluded his own emotional testimony earlier in the week, accused the publisher of making his wife Meghan Markle’s life “an absolute misery” and called for “an apology and some accountability.” He was seen observing Hurley’s testimony and reportedly offered comfort to her son, Damian, highlighting the shared sense of grievance among the claimants.

The Duke of Sussex’s presence underscores the collective nature of the legal challenge against ANL, with claimants alleging a “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” spanning decades. ANL, however, maintains that 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.” The trial, which is a civil case being decided by Mr Justice Nicklin without a jury, is expected to continue for nine weeks, delving into complex questions of journalistic ethics, privacy rights, and the boundaries of information gathering in the digital age.

The ongoing High Court trial against Associated Newspapers Limited represents a pivotal moment in the discourse surrounding press ethics in the UK, as it brings to light not only specific allegations of unlawful information gathering but also the profound personal and emotional impact such practices can have on public figures, regardless of their celebrity status.