Explained: Why Prince Harry, Elton John and five others are suing Daily Mail publisher?

A high-stakes legal showdown between Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, and seven prominent individuals, Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, commenced on Monday. The high-octane case against the media outlet, which was filed last year, was heard at London's High Court for the first time and both Prince Harry and Elton John were present in court for the proceedings.

The explosive lawsuit alleges that Associated Newspapers was responsible for "abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy" in its efforts to obtain dirt on high-profile figures.

The claimants have alleged that Associated Newspapers, one of Britain's biggest newspaper publishers who run Daily Mail and the Mail, is responsible for unlawful information gathering over a period of 25 years between 1993 and 2018.They have been accused of placing listening devices in victims' homes and cars, bugging their phone calls, and paying police officials for information.

In the lawsuit, the claimants'lawyers have also alleged that the publisher tasked private investigators to unlawfully obtain information about them and "even commissioned breaking and entry into their private properties".

The publisher, however,strongly denies all the allegations, arguing that the individuals have waited "too long" to start legal proceedings.When the lawsuit was filed, the publisher said that the claims are "preposterous smears"and that it "utterly and unambiguously refuted"them.

Associated Newspapers also stated in a recent interview that theclaimants are mostlyrelying on the material provided by the Mail on a confidential basis to the Leveson inquiry into the British media industry.

Speaking to Reuters,a spokesperson for Associated Newspaperssaid on Monday, "While Mail's admiration for [Doreen] Lawrence remains undimmed, we are profoundly saddened that she has been persuaded to bring this case."

The spokespersonadded, "The Mail remains hugely proud of its pivotal role in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence. Its famous 'Murderers'front page triggered the Macpherson report."

For those unaware,Doreen Lawrence, one of the most notable claimants in the lawsuit, is the mother of the Black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a 1993 racist attack. The Daily Mail's coverage ofStephen's horrific murder has been held up as an example of newspaper journalism at its best. Their coverage helped theLawrence familybring Stephen's killers to justice.

In the statement, the spokesperson also highlighted how one of the private investigators cited by Doreen has already provided a sworn statement mentioning that he never carried out any illegal work for the Daily Mail or Mail.

What're the allegations?

Although the cases of the seven claimants are being dealt with collectively, each has madedistinct allegations of illegal behaviour againstthe publisher.

Doreen Lawrence, who had long been seen as an ally of the Daily Mail and its former editor Paul Dacre, has made some damning allegations against the Daily Mail. She now alleges that the news agency had asked private investigators to dig dirt on her while the paper was publicly campaigning to bring her son's killers to justice.

Lawrence further alleges that Daily Mail reporters had instructed private investigators to conduct an illegal interception of her voicemail messages, tapping of her landline, "blagging" of personal records, the monitoring of her bank accounts and phone bills, covert electronic surveillance and corrupt payments to serving Metropolitan police officers working on the murder investigations.

She has also identified four "unlawful articles", which she claims could nothave been published without "the direct misuse or exploitation of the information unlawfully or illegally obtained". The acts identified in the lawsuit "represent only a fraction of the entirety of the separate unlawful acts committed in relation to her and her associates", according to Doreen.

The lawsuit stated, "The claimant [Doreen] feels anger, shock and upset, upon learning that the Daily Mail targeted her through the unlawful acts and exploited her and her son's murder through the unlawful articles, all of which was deliberately concealed from her both at the time and subsequently. Most of all, however, she feels a deep sense of betrayal. She finds it hard to believe the level of duplicity and manipulation that was clearly at play, knowing now as she does that the Daily Mail’s outward support for her fight to bring Stephen’s killers to justice was hollow, and worse, entirely false."

"The claimant now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers and to profit. The claimant cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason. She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool," it further stated.

Prince Harry, in the explosive lawsuit, hasalleged that the publishedillegally obtained materialfor a number of articles on his personal life, including details of his relationship with hisex-girlfriends Chelsy Davy, Natalie Pinkham and Cressida Bonas. He also accused the publisher ofobtaining details of discussions between him and hisbrother Prince William about how to deal with the release of deathbed images of their mother, Princess Diana.

Harry says that the unlawful activity used to obtain these stories "largely deprived him of important aspects of his teenage years". He says he lost friends and everyone in his life became a "suspect". He adds that the stories were presentedin a manner that led him to believe that those close to him were leaking the information to the publisher, rather than the alleged use of illegal reporting tactics.

The Duke of Sussexalso claims that the publisher constantly released information related to his private travel plans, which "caused a significant security risk" and amounted to a "major betrayal"of the promises made by the British media to improve its conduct after Princess Diana's death in 1997.

Harry feels that even though the publication calls itself a "beacon of truth and integrity", thecompany "widely and habitually carried out or commissioned illegal or unlawful information gathering activities"to report on some of the most intimate moments of his life.

What's next?

Associated Newspapers wantsthe cases to be thrown out on the basis that they were brought too late.Now, it is up to the judge to determine whether the case will advance or be thrown out as Associated Papers has motioned for. Monday was the first in four days of pre-trial hearings, which are expected to conclude on Thursday.

The presence of Prince Harry and Elton John in the courtroom, which interestingly was done entirely on their own volition and not legally required, has fueled major media coverage, turning millions ofeyeballs on the preliminary hearing.A spokesperson for Prince Harry spoke to Reuters and revealed that the Duke of Sussex wanted to be present for the hearing to signal public support for the case.

It's currently unclear whether this case will result in profound consequences or not. But if it does go to trial, it is safe to say that it will grab global attention.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE