# Now Harry appears to blame his own lawyer for William being 'dragged' into his legal battle with the Mail

By [SAM GREENHILL, CHIEF REPORTER](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/profile-843/sam-greenhill.html)

**PUBLISHED:** 17:36 EDT, 2 October 2025 | **UPDATED:** 09:06 EDT, 3 October 2025

Prince Harry has appeared to blame his own lawyer in a row over [Prince William](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/prince_william/index.html) being ‘dragged’ into his High Court case.

The [Duke of Sussex](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/prince_harry/index.html), who is suing the Daily Mail’s publisher, seemed to have had no idea his barrister David Sherborne would bring his brother into the proceedings.

Harry, who has been trying to pursue reconciliation with his family, yesterday distanced himself from his high-profile lawyer by making it known he was ‘not responsible’ for arguments at the hearing bringing the Prince and Princess of Wales into his case.

The row blew up after a preliminary hearing at the High Court ahead of a trial brought by the duke, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir [Elton John](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/elton-john/index.html), [Elizabeth Hurley](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/elizabeth-hurley/index.html) and three others, who allege the Daily Mail hacked phones, tapped landlines and bugged cars, all of which is strenuously denied.

Among those following the proceedings via a remote video link was Harry, apparently watching in the middle of the night from [California](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/california/index.html).

But he appears to have been taken by surprise by Mr Sherborne, who is representing all seven claimants including the duke, giving the court written submissions referring to Prince William and his then-girlfriend [Kate Middleton](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/kate_middleton/index.html).

They are described as being among Prince Harry’s ‘associates’ who were allegedly targeted in the 2000s by private investigators paid by the Mail’s publisher Associated Newspapers, which denies all wrongdoing and has described the court allegations as ‘lurid’ and ‘simply preposterous’ as well as untrue.

After the inclusion of William’s name was revealed by courtroom reporters including from the Press Association news agency and The Times, the Daily Telegraph’s headline was ‘Harry drags William into battle’. It said the move risked deepening the rift between the brothers, coming weeks after the duke reunited with the King for the first time in 19 months over tea at Clarence House.

Then in the early hours of Thursday, when journalists in the UK were asleep, efforts were ramped up to get Harry’s version of events out.

A source close to the duke insisted that Harry was ‘not personally dragging’ his brother into the legal dispute and ‘wasn’t aware of the evidence presented as part of the general case argument made by David Sherborne’. The source added that Harry was ‘not responsible for’ the arguments made by Mr Sherborne.

A nine-week trial into all the allegations is due to start in January. The High Court was told the Daily Mail has lined up ‘scores’ of witnesses to defend itself against the baseless allegations.

Yesterday, during the preliminary hearing, the court was told that legal researchers working for Prince Harry and the others hatched a ‘camouflage scheme’ to mislead the High Court.

Damning emails involving claimant Sir Simon Hughes, the former president of the Lib Dems, showed ‘astonishing’ discussions about how to cheat the legal system, it was alleged.

Actress Sadie Frost also faces questions about whether she also misled the court.

It was revealed the legal research team working for Harry and the others had apparently discussed how to get around strict court rules when they potentially threatened their plans.

Under the law, privacy claims must be brought within six years, otherwise they are time-barred. The ‘limitation’ law exits to ensure justice for all parties, and to prevent evidence being tainted by fading memories or potential witnesses dying or otherwise being unable to give testimony. 

But the emails unearthed from 2016 to 2019 reveal members of the legal team – including experienced solicitor Mark Thomson, convicted phone hacker Graham Johnson and former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris – were apparently involved in discussing how to circumvent the rules.

Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers, read out one email and told the court: ‘What jumps out in the email, and strikes one as astonishing, is that there was what I will call “limitation camouflage” being put in place. You only need camouflage if you have something to hide.’

Mr White said in written submissions that, in the case of Sir Simon – who was deputy leader of the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg and served as justice minister in the coalition government – there was ‘a document which appears to show that in July 2019 a scheme was hatched involving Mr Johnson to present a misleading picture in relation to limitation’.

And in the case of actress Ms Frost, there was a document ‘which appears to show that she discussed her potential claim with members of the research team and her solicitors in April 2016’ – more than six years before she and Harry and the others actually lodged their claims in October 2022.

There are seven claimants suing the Daily Mail’s publisher. An email from December 2018 revealed Dr Harris telling Ms Frost there were ‘five or so others who have been notified and I think they are suing’ – suggesting at least six claimants had already become involved by then.

The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, said of the emails: ‘It tantalisingly suggests – that is the impression I have at the moment – that, by that stage, there had been amassed pieces of the jigsaw.’

The ruse considered by the legal research team was apparently to get around the six-year rule by planting ‘new’ stories on a website, Byline, claiming the Mail was involved in hacking.

Then they would pretend the claimants had discovered they were potential victims from these articles – when in reality, they had already been discussing suing the newspaper, but risked running out of time before the six-year limit, it was suggested.

Senior solicitor Mr Thomson, whose firm then was called Atkins Thomson, was apparently involved in the idea.

An email headed ‘Daily Mail hacking’ sent by Dr Harris to Sir Simon on July 11, 2019, and copied to Mr Johnson, stated: ‘The Mail hacking claims are being developed, and will be ready to launch soon. To deter the Mail from arguing “limitation” (ie you knew about this 6 years ago) Atkins Thomson think it best for stories to be written in Byline which can be referred as the basis for claims being raised.

It was this email that Mr White said was part of the ‘limitation camouflage scheme’. He pointed out that Sir Simon had given the court a statement of truth saying he found out evidence only in ‘early 2022’, three years after this email was sent.

Another email, sent in August 2017 from Dr Harris to Ms Frost, said that he would ‘discuss with Mark \[Thomson\]…hacking issues as we have gathered more evidence since we last spoke’, suggesting the actress had already been involved in discussions previously.

Mr White said Dr Harris had asked Ms Frost for a quote for one of the Byline articles and, in the case of Sir Simon, had proposed that a Byline article should be written ‘which can be referred to as the basis for claims being written…to deter the Mail from arguing “limitation”.’

Mr Sherborne suggested Mr White’s characterisation of the emails was ‘dramatic’.

Associated Newspapers strenuously rejects all the ‘simply preposterous’ allegations. Last year in a ‘trenchant defence of its journalism’, the publisher submitted detailed defences to the claims to the High Court, explaining the legitimate sources for the information in each article complained about, including in one case naming a former Home Secretary as being the source of a story about Baroness Lawrence’s son Stephen Lawrence.

The case is projected to cost £38million – a ‘manifestly excessive’ amount of money, two judges ruled earlier this year.

Yesterday’s two-day hearing concluded with Mr Justice Nicklin expected to rule on the preliminary matters at a later date.