Access the article and all the contents of the site
with the dedicated app, newsletters, podcasts and live updates.
SPECIAL OFFER
BEST OFFER
ANNUAL
19€
For 1 year
CHOOSE NOW
MONTHLY
€1 PER MONTH
For 6 months
CHOOSE NOW
SPECIAL OFFER
BEST OFFER
ANNUAL
11,99€
For 1 year
CHOOSE NOW
MONTHLY
€2 PER MONTH
For 12 months
CHOOSE NOW
SPECIAL OFFER
Read the article and the entire website ilmessaggero.it
1 Year for €9.99 89,99€
or
€1 per month for 6 months
Automatic Renewal. Turn off whenever you want.
- Unlimited access to articles on site and app
- The 7:30 Good Morning newsletter
- The Ore18 newsletter for updates of the day
- The podcasts of our signatures
- Insights and live updates
Il principe Harry he accused Buckingham Palace that he had kept information about “for a long time” hidden from him telephone tapping by the tabloid press to which he had been subjected in the past.
King Charles and Camilla in Berlin, the first trip abroad and dinner with German cousins: why this visit has a high symbolic value
Harry and the wiretaps, everything that transpired
This new detail on the turbulent and often conflicting relationship between the Duke of Sussex eh Windsor emerged during the hearings in the High Court of London for the legal action brought by half a dozen VIPs, including the second son of King Charles III, against the editorial group Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, denounced before the British justice for alleged “serious” illegal interceptions.
The document
In a document presented by Harry’s lawyers to the court, we read that the Palace had withheld that information for a quiet life and to avoid possible legal action taken against the media by the prince. “This has only become clear in recent years – the duke’s document continues – after I brought forward a legal action on my own”.
The defense of the Mail
After two days in the courtroom today, the prince preferred not to appear, also because the Mail group defended itself against accusations made by VIPs against the alleged illegal methods used to gather information. Adrian Beltrami, one of the lawyers of the ANL, “rejected the charges in their entirety” stating that they were presented too late. He cited a law that requires plaintiffs to file privacy claims within six years of the time they arise.
Read the full article
on The Messenger