Elizabeth Hurley Testifies On Alleged Daily Mail Phone Bugging

In a packed High Court room on January 22, 2026, the spotlight shone on actress Elizabeth Hurley as she gave emotional testimony against the publisher of the Daily Mail, alleging a series of shocking invasions of her privacy. Prince Harry, a fellow claimant in the high-profile case, watched from the gallery—his own recent testimony still fresh in the minds of the assembled press and legal teams. The courtroom was thick with anticipation, legal books lining the walls, and the air punctuated by the hum of journalists tapping out updates for a world eager to follow every development.

Hurley’s evidence, delivered with visible distress, painted a disturbing picture of alleged unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail. According to Sky News, Hurley described her devastation upon learning that her home landlines had been tapped and her dining room window bugged. In her written witness statement, released to the court, she detailed the alleged acts: “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 with Damian and other monstrous, staggering things.” She called these actions a “brutal invasion of privacy” and the “ultimate violation of privacy.”

Hurley drew a sharp distinction between voicemail interception and what she described as the far graver act of listening in on every phone call in her home. “There is a vast difference between someone intercepting a voicemail and someone listening in on every single phone call in your home and concealing a tape recorder and attaching it to your home BT wire to record your live telephone conversations,” she told the court, as reported by Sky News.

Throughout her testimony, Hurley repeatedly denied that any leaks came from her friends or inner circle. When Antony White, representing ANL, suggested that information printed in the Mail might have come from her acquaintances, Hurley was adamant: “No friend of mine would say that.” She insisted that most of her friends were private people, not in the public eye, and unlikely to have dealings with journalists. “Very few friends of mine have anything to do with journalists or would give a quote, some would not know how,” she said.

White pressed Hurley on her history of media interaction, pointing out that she had given interviews to various outlets. Hurley conceded she had participated in “very few interviews” and characterized her own quotes as “very benign.” She explained, “There is a difference between the quotes I have given in interviews and the reports of heated conversations and mean things which appeared in the press in my opinion because information was illegally obtained.” She emphasized, “I have never publicly said anything which I didn’t want my son to read.”

The emotional toll on Hurley was evident. At times, she wiped tears from her eyes but insisted on continuing her testimony, even when offered breaks by both the judge and opposing counsel. She recounted her experience of being the subject of “hundreds if not thousands of articles,” describing a relentless “avalanche” of “intrusive” press interest, particularly during the 2000s.

Antony White also questioned Hurley about her previous legal actions against other media groups, including the Mirror and The Sun. Hurley acknowledged that she had settled libel claims in the 1990s out of court, but said the articles at the center of the current case were different. “They were in essence true,” she told the court, “because people were listening to me speak.” She maintained that she had never identified anyone in her circle as a potential leak, reiterating her belief that the source of the stories was illegal surveillance. “There were microphones on the windowsill of my dining room,” she declared. “My rooms and landlines were bugged—so yes, there were leaks, but not from my friends.”

Hurley’s lawyer, David Sherborne, played a pivotal role throughout the proceedings, guiding her through her statement and supporting her as she faced rigorous cross-examination. Sherborne also represents Prince Harry and other claimants in the ongoing case against ANL.

Prince Harry’s own testimony earlier in the week had been equally emotional. According to Sky News, the Duke described how the press “made my wife’s life a misery,” referencing the intense scrutiny and negative coverage endured by Meghan Markle. Harry explained that he felt unable to complain about the articles at the time because of the constraints imposed by the royal “institution.” He recounted how his approach to the press changed after his relationship with Meghan began, suggesting a more confrontational stance in the face of what he saw as relentless intrusion.

The allegations against ANL go beyond Hurley and Harry. As reported by the BBC, David Sherborne used his opening argument to highlight the role of David Dillon, an executive at the Mail on Sunday News Desk. Sherborne alleged that Dillon approved invoices for private investigator Steve Whittamore, who was tasked with tracking down the owners of celebrity vehicles by using registration plate information. Whittamore, in his own evidence, admitted that his methods involved what he called the “dark arts”—a euphemism for illicit or unethical information gathering. Sherborne argued that Dillon not only approved these invoices but also directly commissioned Whittamore, suggesting a pattern of behavior within the organization.

ANL has strenuously denied each specific instance of alleged unlawful information gathering in all of the claimants’ cases, including Hurley’s. The publisher maintains that any information published was already in the public domain or obtained through legitimate means. White, representing ANL, sought to demonstrate that Hurley’s own interviews and the reporting of other publications made some of the contested information public knowledge.

The case has drawn intense public and media interest, not least because of the high-profile claimants and the serious nature of the allegations. The proceedings have also highlighted broader questions about press ethics, privacy rights, and the limits of media scrutiny in the digital age. For Hurley, Harry, and the other claimants, the trial represents a reckoning with practices they argue have caused deep personal harm.

As the trial continues, the court will weigh the detailed evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the British press and public figures, potentially setting new precedents for privacy and accountability in journalism. For now, the claimants and the public alike await the court’s judgment on a case that has already exposed the deep scars left by years of media intrusion.