**Elizabeth Hurley Accuses Daily Mail of Illegal Surveillance in Bombshell Court Testimony**
Key Takeaways:
- Actor Elizabeth Hurley alleges unlawful surveillance by Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers.
- Claims include window bugging, phone tapping, and theft of medical records between 2002–2011.
- Hurley joins Prince Harry, Elton John, and others in high-profile lawsuit against the publisher.
London — Elizabeth Hurley has accused the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), of using illegal surveillance tactics, including placing microphones on her windowsill and tapping her landline phones, as part of a wider lawsuit involving multiple high-profile figures. The emotional testimony, delivered at the High Court in London, is placing intense public and legal scrutiny on one of the UK’s most powerful media companies.
Hurley’s Emotional Testimony Shakes the Courtroom
Elizabeth Hurley, known for her work as an actor and model, broke down several times during her court testimony on Tuesday, April 9, 2024, accusing the publisher of launching a sustained assault on her privacy over nearly a decade. She claims the Daily Mail and its sister publications acquired personal information through “monstrous, staggering” conduct.
Included in her allegations are claims of phone tapping, placing covert microphones on the windows of her home, stealing her medical records during her pregnancy, and recording private phone conversations without consent. In her court statement, Hurley stated, “Above all, it was the discovery that the Mail had tapped the landlines of my home phones and tape-recorded my live telephone conversations that devastated me. I felt crushed.”
The lawsuit stems from 15 articles about Hurley published between 2002 and 2011. She is among seven people currently pursuing legal action against ANL. The other claimants include Prince Harry, musician Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, actor Sadie Frost, and former MP Simon Hughes.
Publisher Fights Back Against Explosive Claims
Associated Newspapers denies all allegations, labeling the claims “lurid” and “preposterous.” Their legal representative, Antony White KC, emphasized that the claims were based on “unsupported” and “inferential” evidence. The publisher argues that much of the allegedly illicit information came from authorized interviews, publicists, press officers, freelance journalists, or prior reporting, not from illegal conduct.
The defense also cited a critical inconsistency in the claimant’s timeline, asserting that some of the claims breach the legal limitation period for such lawsuits. According to ANL, Hurley and other claimants have filed these allegations long after the statutory deadline for such claims had passed. Hurley contends that she only discovered the extent of the alleged surveillance after a October 2016 cut-off date.
Much of Hurley’s testimony was met with aggressive cross-examination from ANL’s barrister, who said the articles cited in the lawsuit may have been based on disclosed, authorized, or benign quotes from her own interviews or from identifiable friends. Hurley rejected that explanation, asserting that such public statements revealed no private or compromising details.
Why This Case Matters Now
This trial is part of a significant legal confrontation between prominent public figures and powerful British media outlets over illegal newsgathering techniques. The primary evidence linking ANL to illicit behavior comes from a statement by private investigator Gavin Burrows, which was later “disavowed.” Still, the claimants argue that the content of his statement aligns with their own disturbing experiences and deserves judicial review.
Hurley’s testimony follows similar allegations made by Prince Harry, who has attended all four days of this week’s proceedings in support of his fellow claimants. He has previously accused ANL of phone hacking and “blagging” confidential information from those in his social circle.
Critically, this trial could set the stage for new legal boundaries on UK media conduct in the digital age. It also poses reputational and financial risks for ANL, especially if the judge determines a pattern of illegal or unethical journalism practices.
What Comes Next for the Claimants and the Publisher
The court will continue hearing evidence and arguments from both sides as the trial moves forward. Public attention is expected to grow, with further testimony anticipated from Baroness Lawrence and other claimants not yet examined. Should the court find in favor of the claimants, it could result in substantial damages and regulatory scrutiny for ANL.
ANL currently faces similar reputational damage as that endured by other media outlets post-Leveson Inquiry, which was initially triggered by the News of the World phone hacking scandal in the early 2010s. Unlike that case, however, the current allegations involve ongoing misconduct well into the 2010s and new forms of surveillance technology, making this trial especially significant.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why is elizabeth hurley trending?
A: She has accused the Daily Mail’s publisher of illegal surveillance, including planting microphones on her home and tapping private phone calls, during a high-profile court trial in London.
Q: What happens next?
A: The trial continues this week, with more testimony expected. A ruling from the High Court will determine if the case moves toward a full trial for damages.
#ElizabethHurley
