Imagine discovering that your most trusted news source might have crossed ethical boundaries to bring you the latest scoop. That's exactly what's at the heart of a high-stakes trial involving the Daily Mail, Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, and a web of allegations about privacy breaches. Former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has taken the stand, revealing he put a stop to any unlawful newsgathering practices once he became aware of them. But here's where it gets controversial: while Dacre claims he 'brought the shutters down' on these activities, the evidence presented in court paints a more complex picture.
Dacre's testimony comes as part of a privacy trial brought by seven high-profile individuals, including Prince Harry and Sir Elton John, who accuse Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of 'grave breaches of privacy.' In court, Dacre acknowledged that private investigators working for the paper may have used unlawful techniques, but he staunchly defended his actions, calling allegations of widespread misconduct 'preposterous.'
And this is the part most people miss: Dacre's response to an Information Commissioner's Office investigation into Steve Whittamore, a private investigator who admitted data protection breaches in 2005, has come under scrutiny. The investigation revealed that ANL, the Mail's publisher, was Whittamore's biggest client among newspaper groups. Dacre, now editor-in-chief of DMG Media Ltd (ANL's holding company), previously defended ANL's actions during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards 14 years ago, denying any evidence of phone hacking.
During the trial, Dacre was questioned about emails from 2006 between freelance journalist Greg Miskiw and former Mail on Sunday associate editor Chris Anderson. These emails included transcripts of voicemails allegedly obtained by phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire, a close associate of Miskiw. While the story was never published, Miskiw was paid £500, which claimants' barrister David Sherborne argued was 'prima facie' evidence of phone hacking. Dacre countered that the payment was likely a 'kill fee' to prevent the story from appearing elsewhere, though he admitted he wasn't fully aware of the circumstances at the time.
Here’s where opinions start to diverge: Dacre claims he took decisive action in 2007 by banning journalists from using 'inquiry agents'—a euphemism for private investigators. He emphasized his efforts to educate journalists about the seriousness of the Data Protection Act, acknowledging that some had used these agents to obtain ex-directory phone numbers. 'It's very low on the Richter scale of unlawfulness,' he argued, suggesting potential public interest justified the practice.
However, Sherborne challenged Dacre's assertion that the ban was effective, citing examples of journalists allegedly continuing to pay private investigators for unlawful information. One such instance involved royal correspondent Rebecca English obtaining Chelsy Davy's aircraft seat number. Dacre claimed ignorance, stating, 'When I was a journalist, airlines were very relaxed about giving details.' He also defended payments to freelance reporters, distinguishing them from inquiry agents: 'Every newspaper pays for stories... As long as you don't pay a policeman, it's okay.'
The trial has been marked by tense exchanges, with Judge Mr. Justice Nicklin repeatedly criticizing Sherborne for questioning beyond the scope of the case. On Wednesday, Sherborne was given a time limit for cross-examining Dacre, who left the witness box shortly after 15:00 GMT. The trial is set to conclude in March, with a written judgment expected later.
But here's the real question: Did Dacre truly put an end to unlawful practices, or were they simply pushed further into the shadows? And where do we draw the line between aggressive journalism and invasion of privacy? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this is a debate that’s far from over.
