Prince Harry v Daily Mail latest: 'A lot of things leaked by police,' Doreen Lawrence tells court in legal fight against Associated Newspapers

We're pausing our live coverage of the trial against the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.

Today, Baroness Doreen Lawrence gave evidence for around an hour at the High Court.

If you're just catching up with our coverage, here's a round-up of what she said:

• Baroness Lawrence told the court she "was not in conversation" with the Daily Mail before, during or after her son's inquest despite articles being published;
• She insisted she doesn't conduct interviews over the phone, and "personally was not speaking" when articles were published in 1997;
• Baroness Lawrence also explained how she would have a meeting with the police one day, and read an article the following day, claiming "a lot of these things are leaked by the police";
• She also insisted she "knew nothing" about press reform campaign group Hacked Off;
• As she finished her evidence, Baroness Lawrence said "they were playing me", adding "I've never been able to grieve for my son properly".

We'll be back with more coverage for any further breaking news lines.

Early on in this case, barrister David Sherborne told the court about the individual claimants' "personal watershed moments" - the point at which they found out what they say is information that led to them bringing this case forward.

These are important as, alongside strongly denying wrongdoing, part of Associated Newspapers' defence is that these claims have been made too late - as the law indicates this sort of case should be brought within six years.

The six-year rule

The claimants should have known, or could have found out, if they had a potential case before October 2016, six years before the legal action was launched in October 2022, ANL argues.

However, Sherborne argues alleged wrongdoing by ANL was deliberately "concealed" - an exception that allows claims to be brought outside the standard six-year period.

From the claimants' skeleton argument - the summary of their legal case, a 180-page document that has been submitted to the court - details of these watershed moments were outlined.

Email from Harry

For Doreen Lawrence, this was prompted initially by an email from Prince Harry suggesting there was information she should know, the court documents say. 

She then had a meeting with two lawyers.

"Most importantly, she learned at her Personal Watershed Moment that private investigators had confessed to criminal activities aimed at secretly stealing and exploiting information from victims, including her - this information itself had only emerged in late 2021," the document states.

That now concludes Baroness Doreen Lawrence's evidence in court, just in time for lunch.

The court has now risen and will return at around 2pm.

Scroll down to catch up on her evidence, given in the past hour.

David Sherborne, representing Baroness Doreen Lawrence and the other high-profile claimants in this case, asks about the impact the case has had on her.

"I trusted the Mail when we were in conversation and to find myself here now having to give evidence, I find it very painful," she says.

"I've been played... to know all of this was going on at the same time I was trusting them."

Baroness Lawrence says she's "never been able to grieve for my son properly" because of her ordeal with the police.

"I felt I had a newspaper that I trusted to get justice for Stephen," she says, referring to the Mail's campaign after her son's death.

"They were playing me.

"They've used me and my son to give them credibility of supporting a black family, but at the end of the day I don't think they have."

Baroness Doreen Lawrence is now being asked about Hacked Off and her awareness of the group.

Hacked Off is a press reform campaign group supported by actor Hugh Grant after he claimed to be a victim of phone hacking.

Baroness Lawrence tells the court she had "heard of them but knew nothing about them".

"I have no knowledge of Hacked Off apart from what I've heard about them," she adds.

Antony White, representing ANL, finishes his questioning.

For context: A major argument in Associated Newspapers Limited's defence is that the seven claimants in the trial waited too long before bringing a case - but the claimants say they only learned they had a case after the six-year time limit and could not have known before.

Baroness Doreen Lawrence is explaining how articles would appear after her meetings with the police.

She says articles would be written "after I had a meeting with these officers, that's how articles would come out", and tells the court "a lot of these things are leaked by the police".

"We were seeing the police on one day and the next day there would be an article discussing what was in the meeting, not something I would have spoken to a journalist about," she adds.

"Every time we went for a meeting with the police, the very next day we would read something in the paper."

Baroness Doreen Lawrence tells the court about the "battles" she fought every day while she was grieving for her son.

"Usually when I do interviews, it's face-to-face with somebody," she says.

"You're trusting that somebody's speaking to you, that's all you can do."

Antony White, representing ANL, says if someone called saying they're a Guardian journalist, you would expect that information to be published in The Guardian - referring to claims a journalist posed as being from a different newspaper when speaking to her.

He also asks how she came to select these five articles when the Mail ran a sustained campaign for at least 15 years after her son's death.

"These ones in '97 wouldn't be something that I would have spoken to them about," she adds.

"That time, I personally was not speaking.

"I don't do interviews over phones."

White asks if Baroness Lawrence selected articles or if they were chosen for her.

"I'm not certain about that," she replies.

Baroness Doreen Lawrence has started giving her evidence at the High Court.

Antony White, representing Associated Newspapers Limited, is asking her about a Daily Mail article after her son was killed in a racist attack in 1993.

In his opening statement, David Sherborne, representing the high-profile claimants behind this action, told the court that all aspects of the case and the "twists and turns" were "great fodder" for tabloid newspapers.

He said Baroness Lawrence's case relies on five articles published by journalist Stephen Wright for ANL between 1997 and 2007.

"During, before and even after the inquest, I was not in conversation with the Daily Mail," Lawrence tells the court.

"Even though this has been printed, I was not in conversation with them."

We're resuming our live coverage of the trial against the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.

Prince Harry and six other prominent claimants, including Sir Elton John and Liz Hurley, allege Associated Newspapers Limited hired private detectives to commit a series of unlawful acts between 1993 and 2011.

The Duke of Sussex and others have already spent some time on the stand. Today, Baroness Doreen Lawrence is giving evidence during the nine-week trial at London's High Court.

Stay with us as we bring you the latest.

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.