Prince Harry Stands by Elizabeth Hurley as She Breaks Down in Court Over Alleged Tabloid Spying

Prince Harry stands in solidarity with Elizabeth Hurley as she gives emotional testimony in a landmark court case accusing U.K. tabloids of unlawful surveillance and privacy invasion.

A High-Profile Legal Battle Over Privacy

Prince Harry showed public support for Elizabeth Hurley on Thursday as the British model and actress became emotional while testifying at London’s High Court. Hurley is one of seven prominent figures alongside Sir Elton John bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, over alleged unlawful information gathering spanning nearly two decades.

The claimants argue that the tabloids engaged in what their lawyer described as a “systematic and sustained” campaign of privacy violations, including phone tapping, surveillance, and the misuse of personal data.

Hurley’s Emotional Testimony

During her testimony, Hurley broke down as she described what she called a “brutal invasion of privacy.” She alleged that her home phones were tapped, conversations recorded, and microphones placed near her property actions she said caused lasting emotional distress.

At several points, Hurley paused to regain composure, describing how deeply unsettling it was to feel watched and listened to inside her own home. She told the court that many of the tabloid stories published about her over the years were accurate only because, she believes, private conversations were illegally intercepted.

Prince Harry’s Visible Support

Prince Harry, who testified the previous day, attended the hearing in solidarity with Hurley. Royal commentators noted that his presence sent a powerful message reinforcing that the case extends beyond his personal grievances with the British press.

Observers described the moment as a visual reminder that the lawsuit represents a broader challenge to alleged tabloid practices affecting multiple public figures, not just the Duke of Sussex.

Allegations of Widespread Intrusion

In written statements submitted to the court, Hurley detailed alleged acts including landline phone tapping, the recording of live calls, and the acquisition of sensitive medical information. She said discovering these practices left her feeling “crushed” and constantly questioning whether those around her could be trusted.

Hurley emphasized that she was particularly mindful of protecting her son, Damian, and said she avoided making any public statements she would not want him to read.

Associated Newspapers Denies Claims

Associated Newspapers has strongly rejected the allegations, calling them “preposterous.” The publisher maintains that all reporting was based on lawful methods and information provided voluntarily by sources, including friends and acquaintances of the claimants.

Defense lawyers argued that none of the published articles relied on illegal surveillance, insisting that journalists acted within legal and ethical boundaries.

Harry’s Broader Fight With the Press

Harry’s court appearance followed his own emotional testimony, in which he accused U.K. tabloids of making his wife Meghan Markle’s life “an absolute misery.” He told the court that the notion he is not entitled to privacy because of his royal status is “disgusting.”

In his witness statement, Harry also referenced close family members, including Prince William and Kate Middleton, as part of his argument that private details published by the media could only have come from unlawful information gathering.

A Divisive Royal Debate

Royal experts remain split on Harry’s approach. Supporters argue he is confronting long-standing abuses by the British press, while critics say his legal strategy risks deepening family divisions and pulling the monarchy into prolonged controversy.

The case has reignited debate over media ethics, celebrity privacy, and the limits of press freedom in the U.K.

Conclusion

As the trial continues, Elizabeth Hurley’s emotional testimony and Prince Harry’s visible support underscore the human toll behind the legal arguments. At its core, the case raises fundamental questions about privacy, accountability, and whether powerful media organizations should face consequences for alleged past abuses. With weeks of hearings still ahead, the outcome could have lasting implications for both Britain’s tabloid industry and the public figures who say they were harmed by it.