March 03, 2026
Prince Harry’s phone hacking is actively proceeding in the High Court and Daily Mail’s long-serving royal editor was cross-examined on the claims that the information had been collection via unlawful means.
Rebecca English, who had been covering the royal beat since 2004, slammed the claims from the Duke of Sussex, dismissing any suggestion that she used any private investigators to acquire information.
Lawyer David Sherborne, who represents the seven claimants including Prince Harry, had told the journalist that the information in the articles could only voicemail messages left between Harry and his then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.
“It’s utterly crazy to even suggest that,” Rebecca told the court, adding that it is “both wrong and deeply offensive”.
One of the stories Rebecca had written in January 2006, had reported that Chelsy was “madly in love” in Harry and was worried about their long-distance romance. It also included details like a “beautiful” silver bracelet Harry had given her as a belated Christmas present.
The editor added that the details came from a “variety of sources” which also included a witness in Mozambique, where the couple were on holiday at the time. She asserted that she “never heard” of the private investigators and companies the complainants have enlisted.
She went on to accuse the prosecutor for “randomly plucking figures out of thin air to see if they fit my story”, when David mentioned payments.
The lawyer insisted that Harry had not shared private information wit strangers, Rebecca asserted, “All I can say is that he did, and that one of those people called the news desk and the reporter took down the details.”
Citing an article, Let Her Rest in Peace, referred to an “intimate and personal conversation” between Prince Harry and Prince William, Rebecca shared she had simply asked the Clarence House press office about the matter.
“I cannot say it more clearly, I am telling you the press office gave me that information,” she told the court.
She explained that the details are often provided as background guidance by royal aides “off the record” and it depends what questions a journalist asks them.