Prince Harry Phone Hacking Case Takes Dramatic Turn As Journalist Faces Tough Court Questions
Prince Harry’s ongoing phone hacking lawsuit has taken a dramatic turn as key testimony unfolded in the High Court. The case has once again placed the Duke of Sussex and the British royal family under intense public attention.
At the center of the latest developments is veteran royal journalist Rebecca English, who was questioned about allegations that information in her past reporting may have been obtained through unlawful means. She strongly denied the claims while defending her long career covering the royal household.
English has worked on the royal beat since 2004 and is widely known for reporting on members of the British royal family including Prince Harry and Prince William. During questioning, she firmly rejected any suggestion that private investigators were used to obtain confidential details.
Lawyer David Sherborne, who represents seven claimants including Prince Harry, challenged the journalist about articles she wrote years ago. He suggested that some details may have originated from intercepted voicemail messages.
The discussion particularly focused on Prince Harry’s relationship with his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy. Sherborne claimed the information published in earlier articles could only have come from private voicemail exchanges between the couple.
Rebecca English responded strongly to the suggestion in court. She said the accusation was completely baseless and described it as “utterly crazy,” insisting that she never used private investigators to collect information about Prince Harry.
One article written by English in January 2006 was closely examined during the hearing. The report described Chelsy Davy as “madly in love” with Prince Harry while also mentioning concerns about maintaining a long distance relationship.
The article also included personal details such as a silver bracelet that Prince Harry reportedly gave Chelsy as a belated Christmas present. According to the journalist, such information did not come from illegal sources but from individuals who were aware of the couple’s activities.
English told the court that the story was based on a “variety of sources.” She even referenced a witness in Mozambique who had seen the couple during a holiday trip at the time, reinforcing her claim that the reporting was legitimate.
During the intense exchange, the journalist also rejected claims about payments to private investigators. She accused the lawyer of randomly suggesting figures without evidence in an attempt to connect them to her reporting.
Sherborne argued that Prince Harry would not have voluntarily shared private relationship details with strangers. However, English insisted that the information had indeed been passed along to journalists through people connected to the situation.
Another article discussed during the hearing referred to an emotional conversation between Prince Harry and Prince William. English said the information for that report came directly from the press office at Clarence House.
She explained to the court that palace communications teams often provide background information to journalists. According to her testimony, these discussions can happen off the record and are influenced by the questions reporters ask.
The case continues to draw major interest as Prince Harry’s legal battle against British media organizations unfolds. With testimonies and cross examinations still ongoing, the High Court proceedings could have lasting implications for both the press and the royal family.
