Prince Harry's legal team 'threatened private investigator', High Court hears

ANL, publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, described the allegations as "lurid".

An email disclosed to the High Court on December 18 showed private investigator Glenn Mulcaire received threats from researchers working for the legal team representing the Duke of Sussex and others.

Mr Mulcalire admitted hacking into the Daily Mail's computer system on behalf of rival publications, but "never for the Mail," another email illustrated.

Graham Johnson, a convicted phone hacker who has been working as a legal researcher for the claimants, wrote to colleagues in April 2016: "I'm trying to get him [Mr Mulcaire] to raise his game.

"But he neither responds to threats nor praise. I have b****cked him several times. I do not think Glenn will jump through many more hoops for myself without a [sic] arrangement in place (Glenn is a person who is easily upset and is one of those buy-ups who will go offside at the drop of a hat) - however, I think with more funding I can do what you say."

The emails referenced "threats" and notes about "weekly money".

Financial influencers of press reforms, such as Max Mosley, were kept out of the loop with developments.

In an email dated April 3, 2015, Mr Mosley told the legal researchers: "For what it's worth, GM has admitted to me that he hacked into the Mail (so NGN [News Group Newspapers, a subsidiary of News Corp] could steal stories) but has consistently denied hacking for them.

"He did (he says) work on a small scale for one other publication… but never the Mail."

ANL has constantly argued in court that claimants must disclose any threats or payments made to force anyone to provide information or evidence in support of its allegations against the publisher.

It stated there were "numerous references to such inducements" disclosed by claimants, but no specific documents.

One was a memo by Mr Johnson, which explained that new funding had let him "pay my team of ten whistleblowers and researchers, including the acquisition of evidence".

Mr Justice Nicklin explained to the court the relevance, saying: "If the defendant is able to mount a credible case that the evidence base has been polluted by inducements, they may be able to extend that argument to undermine other aspects of the case."

He explained that the latest disclosures made by the claimants' legal researchers confirmed there was the "collation and collection of pieces of evidence which were for the purposes of bringing a claim against Associated [ANL]".

A key deadline has been set by the judge for January 2, with the trial due to begin on January 14, 2026.

Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that a series of documents must be disclosed and that several other issues must be addressed.

The trial is expected to last nine weeks.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter