Prince Harry 'confident and ready' ahead of high court trial

Other claimants include actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, David Furnish (Elton John's husband) and former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Simon Hughes.

A spokesman for Associated Newspapers previously said all the claims "are preposterous and without foundation".

Prince Harry is due to take the stand to give evidence against the publisher on Thursday, potentially exposing himself to a brutal cross-examination by ANL's lawyer, Antony White KC.

However, this is not the Duke's first rodeo.

In fact, this is the third major legal battle Prince Harry has fought against a UK newspaper group, having won substantial damages and an apology from the publisher of the Mirror and an admission of "unlawful activities" in an out of court settlement with the publisher of The Sun.

However, the fight against the publisher of the Daily Mail could be his hardest yet - with even the pre-trial hearings heating up the courtroom.

The Duke's lawyers have been accused by the defence of "fraud, dishonesty and professional misconduct" in the way they gathered evidence against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

Allegations include paying witnesses, "blackmail", and adopting a so-called "camouflage scheme" via a third-party publication to mislead the court as to when claimants first became aware that ANL allegedly targeted them unlawfully.

The law states that a civil claim must be brought within six years of a claimant first becoming aware of an allegation - many of the disputed Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday articles date back more than a decade.

David Sherborn KC, representing Prince Harry and other claimants, called the claims "wholly objectionable" and demanded "allegations of serious wrongdoing by some of the [claimants'] legal representatives" were taken out of ANL's skeleton arguments - or he would object to them being made public.

In response, Antony White KC, representing ANL, told the court: "It is not necessary to plead a case if the other side's witnesses are not telling the truth."

Mr Justice Nicklin ruled ANL's opening defence goes "far further than an attack on credibility [of witnesses]" and ordered ANL's trial opening note to be amended.

There is also a question mark over the credibility of key witness Gavin Burrows, who's disputed evidence persuaded many of the claimants to take legal action.

Burrows is a private investigator, who now claims a witness statement signed by him in August 2021 was "completely false" and the signature was a "forgery".

The witness statement appeared to admit he targeted "a large number" of people, including Prince Harry and Sir Elton John, by hacking phones and bugging cars.

All of these claims and counterclaims are expected to be tested during the nine-week trial, where the total legal costs for both sides total close to £40million.

If the publisher of the Daily Mail loses the case, it could be disastrous for the newspaper group, which has consistently denied that its journalists were ever involved in unlawful information gathering.

The trial comes as the UK Government is considering a £500million bid from the media conglomerate Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) (represented in court as the subsidiary Associated Newspapers) to buy The Telegraph newspaper.

Losing would be a huge blow for DMGT's journalistic integrity, and would be hugely damaging to its reputation.

Court documents show that "[ANL] denies all the allegations of unlawful activity in respect of each claimant, including phone hacking, phone tapping, blagging, or commissioning private investigators to target them.

"Specifically, Associated denies in respect of each claimant (a) that its journalists engaged in or commissioned unlawful acts; (b) using information obtained through illegal means; (c) misusing each claimant's private information; or (d) commissioning or paying the pleaded TPIs [third party investigators].

"Associated does admit that, prior to April 2007, some journalists used search/enquiry agents to obtain contact details, but not for illegal purposes. Associated's case is that use of private investigators ceased in 2007."

For Prince Harry, he sees his fight against alleged press intrusion as his core mission to get justice for multiple alleged victims, who cannot financially afford the legal fight themselves.

After winning damages from Mirror Group Newspapers at the end of a separate legal case in 2023, he said: "This case is not just about hacking - it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behaviour, followed by cover ups and destruction of evidence, the shocking scale of which can only be revealed through these proceedings.

"I've been told that slaying dragons will get you burned. But in light of today's victory and the importance of doing what is needed for a free and honest press - it's a worthwhile price to pay."

Let's see if his expensive gamble pays off at the end of the trial, which is due to begin at 10:30am at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter