Prince Harry Suing U.K. Tabloid Over 'Illegal' Reporting on Princess Diana

Prince Harry has accused a U.K. tabloid of "illegal" practices targeting Princess Diana, King Charles III, Prince William and Kate Middleton.

The Duke of Sussex is suing Mirror Group Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People, in relation to about 140 articles published between 1996 and 2011.

The allegations range from phone hacking to paying private investigators to dig up private information. The publisher admitted "journalists for whom the Defendant was responsible instructed private investigators to unlawfully obtain private information about [Prince Harry]" on one occasion, but it has denied a host of others and all the phone hacking allegations.

Harry's lawyers wrote in a court filing seen by Newsweek: "Having been of interest to the Defendant since birth, [Prince Harry] has consistently experienced an overwhelming intrusion into his day to day life.

"It is clear that when he was a child, his father and especially his mother were subjected to intrusive and unlawful newsgathering techniques, and that either directly or as a consequence of these illegal actions directed against his mother, [Prince Harry's] own private information was misused."

"However, following the death of his mother and as he entered adolescence, [Prince Harry] saw an increase in the level of intrusion, which added to an already and understandably difficult and distressing time in [Prince Harry's] life. The intrusion worsened yet further, as he approached adulthood."

Harry's claim describes how he became suspicious of those in his inner-most circle after private information began to appear in Mirror Group newspapers.

However, he now believes he was the victim, alongside family, girlfriends and friends, of illegal practices including phone hacking.

Lawyers for the duke point to payments made by the company to private detectives in relation to stories about his life and his relationships, including with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.

The court filing reads: "Details of his private life would frequently appear in articles published by the Defendant for no good reason, and where no official Palace statement had been released in to the public domain and, on occasions, such articles would themselves state that the Palace had refused to comment.

"At various points in time, this led [Prince Harry] to question relationships with close friends and family and to suffer from a complete lack of trust in his associates.

"In particular, his personal relationships suffered, in light of the general paranoia that he developed as a consequence of [the Mirror Group's] actions.

"[Prince Harry] found the intrusion into his life both isolating and troubling, particularly at such a young age."

The document added: "During his relationship with Ms Davy, journalists regularly turned up when the couple had agreed to meet, or at destinations where the couple were holidaying, despite [Prince Harry] flying under pseudonyms.

"Intimate details of their relationship would constantly appear in articles published by the Defendant, with [Prince Harry] and Ms Davy having no understanding as to how this information had been gathered.

"This led to the couple losing trust in numerous friends and experiencing undue pressure on their relationship. However, it is now clear to [Prince Harry] that he was being targeted by the Defendant in this respect."

Detailing what they argue is evidence of unlawful techniques, Harry's lawyers describe payments made to private investigators in relation to various friends, families and associates.

The filing reads: "These include but are not limited to six PI invoices and two payment records relating to HRH The Duke of Cambridge, six payment records relating to Chelsy Davy (including those entitled 'Project Chelsy' or 'Project South Africa'), one payment record relating to HRH The Prince of Wales and one relating to Diana, Princess of Wales."

Suffering 'Considerable Distress'

There were also six payment records relating to Kate while Harry's team suggested he "suffered considerable distress, and the loss of his dignity, standing and personal autonomy, as a result of the misuse of his private information by MGN."

In support of Harry's claim for compensation, his lawyers spoke of: "The obviously personal and sensitive nature of the information which MGN was seeking, which was obtained by listening to his private voicemail messages or other unlawful information gathering activities.

"This included information about his personal relationships at the time, his relationships with other family and friends, and also information relating to his education and career choices. [Prince Harry] feels violated to think that journalists were listening to his private messages."

Lawyers for Mirror Group Newspapers dismissed Harry's allegations in their own court filing: "It is denied that journalists for whom the Defendant was responsible accessed [Prince Harry's] voicemail messages. The Defendant is not aware of any evidence of this. In so far as the claim relates to the period after August 2006, this was after the practice stopped, or was largely cut back.

"It is admitted that journalists for whom the Defendant was responsible instructed private investigators to unlawfully obtain private information about [Prince Harry] as follows: in respect of the Chinawhites nightclub he was known to frequent, in February 2004, at a cost of £75."

The company said it had not been able to identify what private information this related to but said the sum of money involved suggested "that little time was spent."

They argued that Harry can only sue for misuse of private information over events after October 2000, when the 1998 Human Rights Act came into force, meaning they would not be liable for any such claims relating to the period of Princess Diana's life.