Site icon Cyprus inform

Elton John tells London High Court he was incensed by alleged Daily Mail landline bugging

The musician said he had only learned of the Mail's alleged wrongdoing when he was told by his close friend, actress Elizabeth Hurley, who is another of the claimants

London, United Kingdom. Singer Elton John told London’s High Court on Friday he was incensed to learn of allegations that his landline phones had been bugged on behalf of the Daily Mail. He said the alleged actions were “outside even the most basic standards of human decency”.


Claims against Associated Newspapers

John is suing Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, over alleged widespread privacy intrusions alongside his husband David Furnish, Prince Harry and four others.

Publisher response

Associated denies allegations of phone hacking and other unlawful acts, saying its newspapers’ stories were based on information already in the public domain or obtained from legitimate sources, such as celebrities’ “leaky” social circles. It has called the claims “preposterous smears”.

How John said he learned of the allegations

John, appearing by videolink wearing a blue shirt and green jacket, said he learned of the alleged wrongdoing from his close friend, actor Elizabeth Hurley, who is also a claimant. Hurley had been informed by a private investigator that John’s landline phones had been bugged while she was staying with him shortly after the birth of her son.

Disputed private investigator evidence

Evidence from the private investigator is a main issue of contention in the case. After originally giving a statement supporting the claimants, he has retracted it and cast doubt on its authenticity.

John’s account to the court

John said that when he and Hurley realised the seriousness of what had happened, “We were outraged.” He said he does not own a mobile phone and that while Hurley was staying with him his three landline phones were “hacked.”

John said he appeared by videolink because “the inconvenience of my eyesight” meant he was not able to attend in person.


What impact do you think this case could have on how newspapers gather information about public figures?

Exit mobile version