Elton John Labels Privacy Invasion ‘Abhorrent’ in Daily Mail Trial

LONDON (Azat TV) – Sir Elton John on Friday branded the alleged “invasion” of his and his family’s privacy by the publisher of the Daily Mail as “abhorrent and outside even the most basic standards of human decency,” as he gave evidence in a high-profile High Court lawsuit. The renowned singer-songwriter and his husband, David Furnish, are among a group of seven prominent figures, including Prince Harry, who are pursuing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) for alleged unlawful information gathering.

Appearing via videolink from his home, Sir Elton told the London court that he and Furnish were “outraged” by the extent of the alleged privacy breaches, which they claim include unlawfully obtained medical information and landline tapping. The couple’s lawsuit specifically targets 10 articles published between 2000 and 2015, alleging that they were based on illicitly gathered data.

Sir Elton John’s Testimony: Allegations of Unlawful Gathering

During his testimony, Sir Elton described the alleged intrusion into his medical health and details surrounding the birth of their son, Zachary, as particularly “sickening.” He highlighted how the secrecy of such acts prevented them from detecting or stopping the alleged information gathering, which he stated they would have done immediately had they known. Sir Elton also recounted how the birth of Zachary was managed like an “army manoeuvre” to keep it private, making the alleged breaches even more shocking.

When cross-examined by Catrin Evans KC, representing Associated Newspapers Limited, Sir Elton expressed frustration that the defense was focusing on minor details rather than the “real meat” of the case. He emphasized that their claims detail “the most horrendous things in the world that you could ever suffer, from a privacy point of view.”

David Furnish, who gave evidence the day before Sir Elton, reinforced these sentiments in his witness statement. He detailed a “long and difficult history” with The Mail, accusing the publication of being “actively homophobic” and publishing “countless judgmental and narrow-minded stories” about their lives. Furnish asserted that knowing these stories were enabled through “stolen information, and setting private investigators on us, and landline tapping and recording our live telephone calls, is an abomination.”

Associated Newspapers’ Defense and Cross-Examination

Associated Newspapers Limited has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, with its lawyers previously stating that the claims made by Sir Elton and Furnish are “unsupported by any evidence before the court and utterly baseless.” In their written submissions, Antony White KC and Catrin Evans KC argued that the social circles of many claimants were “leaky,” suggesting that friends, associates, or even spokespersons often provided information to the press on a confidential basis.

ANL lawyers specifically addressed the article concerning Zachary’s birth, asserting it was “entirely legitimately” sourced from previously published reports, information from the local registrar’s office, and a statement from a surrogacy agency. They suggested that much of the information was already in the public domain before The Mail article was published. Sir Elton, however, countered that his former spokesman, whom ANL claimed regularly provided health and other information, “no longer works for us.”

Wider Implications of the High Court Privacy Case

The lawsuit is part of a broader legal action brought by a group of high-profile individuals, including the Duke of Sussex, actress Elizabeth Hurley, and campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence. These cases collectively scrutinize the alleged practices of Associated Newspapers Limited, bringing into focus long-standing debates about press freedom, journalistic ethics, and the right to privacy for public figures.

The trial, presided over by Mr Justice Nicklin, has reached its 15th day and is adjourned until Monday, with proceedings expected to conclude in March. A written judgment is anticipated at a later date. The outcome of this case could set significant precedents regarding the responsibilities of media organizations and the protections afforded to individuals against intrusive information gathering.

The ongoing High Court proceedings against Associated Newspapers Limited underscore a persistent tension between public interest journalism and the privacy rights of prominent individuals, with the testimonies highlighting the profound personal impact of alleged unlawful information acquisition.