Caroline Flack’s mother voices support for Duke of Sussex in case against Mirror
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
Caroline Flack’s mother Christine has said the Duke of Sussex is “very brave” for suing the publisher of the Mirror at the High Court in London over alleged unlawful information-gathering.
At the centre of his legal battle, Harry has alleged 147 stories published from 1996 to 2010 by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) titles used information obtained through unlawful means, such as phone hacking.
The articles include “Harry’s date with Gladiators star”, a story about the duke leaving a party with late TV presenter Caroline Flack which was published in The People on April 19 2009.
The duke said he was “shocked” and “livid” that photographers knew where they would be and that he believed it came from information from his, a friend’s or Ms Flack’s voicemails, while MGN said it came from a photo agency and that there is no evidence of phone hacking.
Appearing on Jeremy Vine’s Channel 5 chat show on Thursday, Mrs Flack said: “Carrie was the same in her life, whenever a story appeared in the paper it causes distrust among your friends and your family, she’d say ‘Mum, have you said anything?’
“I think Harry is doing it for everybody … and I think he’s very brave because he is getting such an awful lot of stick as well, and the people that are reporting on him are the same people he is in court against.
“So, it’s doubly hard.”
Mrs Flack said she had been pursued by the paparazzi after her daughter was arrested and later found dead in February 2020 at the age of 40.
She added: “It’s horrendous what the press do, horrendous, and I’m just so pleased he’s (Harry) doing something about it.”
Some 33 articles, dated between 1996 and 2009, were selected for examination during the trial of Harry’s contested claim against MGN on Wednesday.
MGN has told the trial in London it denies that 28 out of the 33 articles involved unlawful information-gathering and that it was not admitted for the remaining five articles.
The publisher claims the stories came from a range of sources, including information disclosed by royal households or other royals, freelance journalists and news agencies as well as confidential sources with “extensive” royal contacts.
