Prince Harry v Daily Mail latest: Ex-MP 'resents' being accused of 'dishonest conspiracy' over Mail privacy case

If you missed our live updates today, here's a recap of what you need to know from day six of the privacy trial against Associated Newspapers Ltd...

• The claim of former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Sir Simon Hughes relates to alleged unlawful information gathering by the Mail on Sunday in 2006 after he was "outed" as being gay by The Sun that year. It does not relate to any published article by the MoS. 
• In his written witness statement, Sir Simon said "it is distressing to realise" that Mail on Sunday publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) "targeted me as well as others using unlawful means and the use of private investigators for the purposes of their own profit". He said: "The fact that they have remained completely unapologetic for this illegal behaviour is also distressing."
• The entirety of ANL's lawyer's questioning focused on the issue of time limitation - whether Sir Simon waited too long before bringing a case.
• Sir Simon was questioned about emails and text messages ANL's lawyer suggested showed he was aware of a potential claim in 2016. 
• He was also asked about a specific July 2019 email from Hacked Off figure and fellow former Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris, referring to deterring the Mail publisher from arguing limitation by relying on stories written in a Byline Investigates publication. 
• Sir Simon admitted the suggestion was "improper" but said it was "completely untrue" and that he "resented" being accused of being involved in some "dishonest conspiracy" and "lying on oath". He says he was aware of a possible claim from 2019 but this did not crystallise until 2022.

Sir Simon Hughes has finished giving his evidence, which brings proceedings to an end for today.

David Sherborne, representing Sir Simon Hughes and the other claimants in the case, is back on his feet to ask his client some final questions.

He asks Sir Simon if he ever discussed the six-year limitation period to bring a case - the main crux of the questions today - with Dr Evan Harris or anyone else at the time. The former MP says he didn't.

Sir Simon also says from 2011 onwards, he thought the now-defunct News of the World were responsible for all of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's unlawful activities and believed Associated Newspapers' denials of involvement in such activity at the Leveson inquiry.

While he had some details in 2019, his case against ANL crystallised in 2022, he tells the court.

Sir Simon says ANL's firm denial of any involvement in unlawful information gathering is "unappealing" and "frustrating".

Sherborne then asks how he feels about being accused of being involved in some "dishonest conspiracy" and "lying on oath" by ANL's lawyer.  

It's "completely untrue and I resent it", he says. 

He says he's lived his life "abiding by the law in every respect", apart from one or two speeding offences.

The court hears that in Sir Simon's original claim against Associated Newspapers Limited, he said:

In around July 2020 I was contacted by Graham Johnson at Byline Investigates who told me I had been targeted by hacking by the Mail on Sunday. 

Sir Simon says he was "duty bound" to amend his pleading when he realised he had actually received an email on this subject sent in 2019. 

Antony White KC suggests that although Sir Simon was "adamant" he wouldn't support concealing knowledge of the time limitation argument, he did "exactly that" by referring to learning something in 2020 he knew of in 2019.

Sir Simon says new material came to light in 2022, changing "the nature of the evidence" and satisfying him he had a potential claim - not the July 2020 Byline article.

White says: "Your original plea about when you were first made aware about unlawful information gathering by ANL, fixed to the publication of the Byline article then, was the adoption by you of the argument you said you wouldn't countenance."

"No sir," Sir Simon replies. 

Sir Simon Hughes is being questioned about the following line in the 11 July 2019 email to him (read the full text in our previous post): 

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.

He says: "I wouldn't, as a matter of principle, countenance anything based on this kind of argument."

Asked why, he says it would be "improper".

Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Ltd, suggests the objective was to deter the Mail's publisher from making an argument on limitation - that the claim was brought too late -  by falsely pretending the 2020 Byline article had first made Sir Simon aware of the situation. 

The former MP says it's "not anything I would support" and he "certainly would not countenance" doing this. 

White suggests he would only need such a deterrence if he had been aware of the relevant facts for some time, and reiterates that he only saw evidence in 2022. 

"There was nothing in my mind then or subsequently that would lead me to think my claim would be subject to an argument it was time limited," he says. 

White says that when that suggestion was made, he would've been "very concerned". 

But Sir Simon says he hasn't tried to find out who gave that advice at his solicitors' firm Atkins Thomson. 

He says it wasn't something "I agreed with then or would've agreed with" so wasn't an issue that needed to be investigated at that time. 

The court is then shown another 11 July email from Graham Johnson about three draft articles, including one summarised:

Killer emails between Britain's most prolific phone hacking operation and the Mail on Sunday evidence a criminal conspiracy. 

Sir Simon says he didn't look in detail at the articles, which didn't appear for a year and the evidence to back it up didn't come until 2022.

The next portion of questioning is focused on the 11 July 2019 email we've just referred to in our previous post.

Here's the full text of the email, from Hacked Off campaigner Dr Evan Harris to Sir Simon Hughes, titled "Daily Mail hacking": 

As you know MMT [Mark Thomson] is progressing your Sun claim and – hopefully – keeping me in the loop. 

That will be done as a group with Coogs, Hugh G, Sienna, Gazza and others so you will not be the main story (despite your obvious celebrity!). 

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.

Graham – copied in – has already done a number of Mail stories which can be found here https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail.  The hacking ones are listed under "voiceMail" (gerrit?!). 

These include stories on Sadie Frost and Heather Mills He has written a story on your Mail case (from public domain and legally sourced material) to follow in the series. It is his approach to check with the target of the Mail the text of the story in case you have ways you rather it was phrased. 

I have asked him to send you the draft after it has been legalled. Of course, it is not ideal to re- air these matters but the website is not one that the papers care to report from, so there is very little visibility. The virtue is that it puts the material into the public domain which will help the litigation. 

Antony White KC suggests Sir Simon Hughes has known since 2016 that claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday were being developed with the knowledge of his solicitor. 

Sir Simon denies the suggestion. 

White then puts it to him that other claimants' lawyers were involved, with other potential claimants being approached and recruited, which Sir Simon denies knowledge of. 

The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, then issues a warning to Sir Simon Hughes that he doesn't have to answer any questions that might incriminate him, before he is shown a 11 July 2019 email entitled "Daily Mail hacking". 

The court is taking a short break while a laptop is replaced. 

Still answering questions about the same email the court was shown before lunch (see 13.19 post), Sir Simon Hughes says he was first alerted to a "work in progress" on a prospective claim at the beginning of March 2019. 

Asked if that work had been going on without his knowledge, he says: "That's correct". 

Antony White KC asks: "Don't you find that extraordinary?"

But the ex-Lib Dem MP says it wasn't surprising because Dr Evan Harris and others working for campaign group Hacked Off were seeking to establish accountability by the press for many people who had allegedly been unlawfully targeted. 

"Until the time they were ready to share what they thought was a good case they had been doing it without me," Sir Simon says. 

He tells the court that if he were to make a claim it would be when "I had personally looked at the evidence" and taken legal advice. This came later in 2022, he says. 

Reminder: This all matters because a major argument in Associated Newspapers Limited's defence is that the seven claimants in the trial waited too long before bringing their case in October 2022 and could have reasonably found they had a claim before this.

However, the claimants say they did not discover they had a potential case until this time.

We're back underway for the afternoon session, with Sir Simon Hughes continuing his evidence.