Prince Harry appears in new ITV documentary as he vows to expose 'illegal activities'

Prince Harry will appear in a new documentary about phone hacking, ITV has announced.

The Duke of Sussex has sat down with reporter Becca Barry where he discussed his aim to expose what he describes as "illegal activities of Britain's tabloid newspapers".

The show, which also features Hugh Grant, Charlotte Church and Paul Gascoigne, and is titled "Tabloids on Trial", will air on ITV1 on July 25 at 9pm.

Harry declared war against the British media long before he and wife Meghan Markle stepped down as senior working royals in 2020.

The prince has brought a total of six cases against the media over the last few years.

He has blamed UK tabloids for intruding his life and hounding his wife as well as his mother, the late Princess of Wales.

He has also accused the press and the Government of being at "rock bottom", "corrupt" and "biased".

In a witness statement for his High Court privacy case against MGN last year, Harry said in a written statement: "In my view, in order to save journalism as a profession, journalists need to expose those people in the media that have stolen or highjacked the privileges and powers of the press, and have used illegal or unlawful means for their own gain and agendas.

"I feel that I need to make sure that this unlawful behaviour is exposed, because obviously I don't want anybody else going through the same thing that I've been going through on a personal level.

"But also on a national level as, at the moment, our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our Government - both of which I believe are at rock bottom."

During his infamous Oprah Winfrey interview in 2021, Harry also said: "If the source of the information is inherently corrupt or racist or biased, then that filters out to the rest of society."

Prince Harry's lawsuits in recent years:

Prince Harry v. Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL)

The Duke of Sussex is one of seven high-profile individuals bringing legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail over allegations it carried out or commissioned unlawful information gathering.

These allegations include placing listening devices inside cars, listening and recording private phone conversations and dishonestly obtaining medical and financial information.

The other individuals include Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, former MP Sir Simon Hughes and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.

ANL has strongly denied the allegations as "preposterous".

In its written defence, published back in May, Andrew Caldecott KC and Adrian Beltrami KC said the case "is without foundation and is an affront to the hard-working professional journalists whose reputations and integrity, as well as that of Associated itself, are wrongly traduced".

ANL said it "stands by its previous statements" that the claims are "preposterous and without foundation".

Prince Harry v. Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL)

Harry also brought a libel claim against ANL over a February 2022 Mail on Sunday article about his legal battle with the Home Office.

The story was published online and in print with the headline: "Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute."

Justin Rushbrook KC, the Duke's barrister, said that the story "purported to reveal, in sensational terms that information from court documents filed by the duke "contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK".

ANL argued the claim expressed an "honest opinion" and did not cause "serious harm" to his reputation.

In January this year, Harry withdrew the libel claim.

Prince Harry v. Splash News and Picture Agency

The Duke of Sussex won a lawsuit against Splash News after its photographers took pictures of his privately rented home in the Cotswolds from a helicopter in 2019.

Splash said it had made an "error of judgement" which would not be repeated, with a statement reading: "We apologise to the Duke and Duchess (of Sussex) for the distress we have caused."

It also agreed to pay damages and legal costs.

Prince Harry v. MGN Limited

The duke filed a lawsuit against Mirror publisher MGN Limited and alleged that its journalists were linked to voicemail interception, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities.

MGN largely contested the claims and denied that any of the articles complained of resulted from unlawful interception of voicemail.

Last February, during a hearing in London, David Sherborne, for Harry, confirmed a settlement had been reached between the duke and MGN.

Mr Sherborne said MGN will pay Harry "a substantial additional sum by way of damages", as well as his legal costs.

He added the publisher would make an interim payment of £400,000.

In December last year, a judge ruled that voice interception became "widespread and habitual" at MGN titles in the late 1990s and was practised "even to some extent" during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards in 2011.

Mr Justice Fancourt also concluded that Harry’s phone was hacked "to a modest extent" by MGN, awarding him £140,600 in damages.

Prince Harry's case was one of the four test cases within a much wider trial regarding issues of voice interception and illegal behaviour against MGN.

His case was heard alongside those of Coronation Street actors Michael Turner and Nikki Sanderson, and Paul Whitehouse's wife, Fiona Wightman.

Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Harry on 15 out of the 33 claims he made against the publisher.

After December's judgement, an MGN spokesperson said: "We welcome today’s judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation."

Prince Harry v. News Group Newspapers (NGN)

The Duke of Sussex is suing the publisher of The Sun newspaper and the now-defunct News of the World alongside actor Hugh Grant over alleged unlawful information gathering.

He claims he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for the papers.

Just last month, it was claimed that Harry "deliberately destroyed" potential evidence relating to his case against NGN.

Attorney Anthony Hudson, for NGN, said at the High Court that the Duke of Sussex had deliberately destroyed text messages with the ghostwriter who penned his bestselling memoir, Spare.

He accused Prince Harry of engaging in "shocking" and "extraordinary" obfuscation by destroying evidence it was seeking in his lawsuit.

A lawyer for Prince Harry said News Group Newspapers was engaging in a "classic fishing expedition" by seeking documents they should have sought much sooner for a trial scheduled in January.

David Sherborne, for Harry, said in court papers: "NGN’s tactical and sluggish approach to disclosure wholly undermines the deliberately sensational assertion that the claimant [Harry] has not properly carried out the disclosure exercise.

He added: "This is untrue. In fact, the claimant has already made clear that he has conducted extensive searches, going above and beyond his obligations."

A trial is expected to start in January 2025

Prince Harry v. Home Office

The duke brought legal action against the Home Office over the security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK.

Harry contested the Home Office's February 2020 decision that he should receive a different degree of protection when he returned to the UK after he quit his royal duties.

He lost the case back in February with High Court judge Sir Peter Lane finding that "there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision" to revise his security, adding: "Any departure from the policy was justified. The decision was not irrational. The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness."

In April, he lost his initial bid to appeal and was ordered to pay 90 percent of the Home Office’s legal costs.

But an order by Lord Justice Bean, dated May 23, showed that the duke was allowed to challenge Sir Peter's dismissal at the Court of Appeal.