Elton John has said articles about his health and the birth of his son by the publisher of the Daily Mail were an “abhorrent” invasion, and that its behaviour was “outside even the most basic standards of human decency”.
Appearing briefly at the high court via video link on Friday, John said he was “incensed” when he was told about allegations that private investigators working for Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) had tapped phone calls and accessed private medical information.
The singer, 78, spoke from an undisclosed location, stating it would have been hard for him to come to court. He also apologised for his eyesight. He accused the publisher’s titles of committing “the most horrendous things in the world” in terms of invading his family’s privacy.
John and his husband, David Furnish, are complaining about 10 articles covering the birth of their son, the cost of their wedding, and John’s health. They also allege two separate episodes of unlawful information gathering that did not result in an article being published.
The couple are part of a group of seven claimants, including Prince Harry and Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, taking a civil case against ANL, accusing it of benefiting from unlawful activity, such as bugging, tapping landlines and hacking phones.
“From a personal level, I have found the Mail’s deliberate invasion into my medical health, and medical details surrounding the birth of our son Zachary abhorrent and outside even the most basic standards of human decency,” John said in a written submission to the court.
“David and I have now seen documents proving that the Mail were digging into me during times when I was in hospital and because I was in hospital.
“We have also seen documents proving their intense digging into and around the birth of our first son, Zachary. We do not believe there could be any legitimate ways that they discovered details about our egg donor, embryos and questions of paternity. Those were among the most confidential matters in our lives at the time.”
ANL denies all the allegations. In written submissions, ANL’s legal team said the claims made in relation to Furnish and John were “groundless and unsupported by the evidence before the court”.
In court, John said he had not initially complained about the stories because he did not suspect they had been secured by unlawful means. He said he had acted after hearing about allegations relating to the actions of the private investigator Gavin Burrows.
The claimants allege Burrows targeted John and Furnish’s private phone calls, even hacking the voicemails of their gardener.
Burrows is now stating that a signed 2021 statement outlining the alleged unlawful acts he carried out for ANL is a forgery. The disputed confession has become central to the case and legal wrangling continues over whether or not Burrows will give evidence.
In written submissions, ANL said Burrows had stated 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”.
Catrin Evans KC, a barrister for ANL, suggested to John that the articles were secured by legitimate means, either from public statements, spokespeople or by using information from previous articles.
Referring to a 2015 article about John becoming ill in Monaco, Evans pointed to previous coverage in the French press. She also highlighted information given to an ANL journalist via an email from John’s former spokesperson Gary Farrow.
“That’s why Mr Farrow no longer works for us,” John said.
Evans said another article, detailing how an illness had led to tour dates being cancelled, had been put together from a statement on John’s own website, as well as information Farrow had given to a news agency. John said the article contained inaccuracies.
Evans suggested the couple’s “wider social milieu” would a;sp provide information to journalists.
“My friends do not talk to the press and that is why they’re still my friends, to put it bluntly,” John said.
ANL’s legal team has said the claimants’ researchers and legal team are trying to link records of payments to private investigators with articles “loosely proximate in time to the payment record, which they claim to believe contain “hallmarks” of unlawful activity.
It said this approach was “unsupported by any evidence before the court and utterly baseless”.
The case continues.
