David Furnish, filmmaker and husband of Sir Elton John, testified in the High Court today, , describing the alleged unlawful information gathering by the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), as “an abomination.” Furnish’s testimony is part of a larger legal action brought by a group of high-profile figures – including Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, and others – accusing ANL of orchestrating a systematic campaign of illegal activity to obtain stories.
Furnish detailed his distress at the prospect that stories about his and John’s personal lives were not simply the result of leaks, but were actively sourced through unlawful means. He stated in written evidence that he and John had been “violated” by the alleged actions of the Mail, specifically referencing the interception of phone calls and the acquisition of private details. He explained that for years, he and John felt targeted by the publication, which he characterized as having been “actively homophobic” and consistently publishing stories “clearly designed to undermine who we are and how we live our lives.”
The couple alleges that ten articles published between and were based on unlawfully obtained information, including medical details. ANL vehemently denies these allegations, with their lawyers asserting that the claims are “unsupported by any evidence before the court and utterly baseless.”
Furnish’s testimony, delivered remotely via videolink, focused on the emotional impact of discovering the potential extent of the alleged surveillance. He recounted being approached by actress Elizabeth Hurley in with information regarding allegations of unlawful tactics employed by the Mail. Hurley reportedly informed them of claims made by private investigator Gavin Burrows, who allegedly admitted to intercepting and recording live telephone conversations at their Windsor home for the Mail on Sunday.
However, ANL disputes Burrows’ claims, stating that he has since asserted he was “never involved in any investigation work in relation to Elton John” and “never intercepted communications relating to … anyone else who had anything to do with Elton John.”
The legal action centers on specific articles. One article from , concerning John’s cancellation of tour dates due to illness, is being challenged on the grounds that it relied on unlawfully accessed medical information. ANL’s legal team, led by Catrin Evans, argues that the information originated from a medical statement on John’s website and statements provided by their spokesperson. Furnish, however, expressed concern over the “specific detail” included in the article, suggesting it went beyond publicly available information.
Another article, published in , detailed John being taken ill in Monaco. ANL contends that similar information was already circulating in the French press.
During questioning, ANL’s counsel suggested that Furnish’s social circle may have been a source of information for journalists. Furnish countered that his friends were aware of his desire for privacy and refrained from sharing personal details. He described having “mastered the art of saying nothing” when approached by journalists, engaging only in “harmless chitchat.”
ANL further argued that John’s former spokesperson, Gary Farrow, “regularly provided the media, including Associated journalists, with information about their lives,” including health and medical details. They claim that the claimants’ legal team is attempting to connect payments to private investigators with articles based on “loosely proximate” timing, alleging unlawful activity without sufficient evidence.
The case highlights broader concerns about privacy and journalistic ethics, with the claimants alleging a “web of illegal acts” spanning from to . The court is now considering evidence from Sir Elton John, who is expected to testify following his husband’s appearance. The trial is ongoing, and the outcome could have significant implications for the practices of tabloid journalism in the UK.
The legal battle is also notable for the substantial costs involved, which have been described as “excessive” by some observers. The Duke of Sussex and other claimants are pursuing the case against ANL over allegations of misuse of private information.
