Dailymail editor denies voicemail hacking as high court hearing continues

dailymail is at the centre of an ongoing high court privacy case after a former showbusiness editor denied listening to voicemails between actors Jude Law and Sadie Frost and said the material for stories came from a trusted human source.

What is happening now?

The court heard evidence from Nicole Lampert, identified as the former showbusiness editor who wrote four articles about Sadie Frost between 2003 and 2005. Frost is one of seven high-profile claimants pursuing a privacy claim against the publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a span described in the proceedings as two decades. ANL has denied wrongdoing.

Lampert told the court she had “never” listened to voicemail messages to obtain information and rejected suggestions that her articles were sourced from phone hacking, dismissing the allegation as “rubbish. ” She said that one article contained material already in the public domain or that it had “almost certainly come from a freelance contact” she identified as Sharon Feinstein.

Lampert described Feinstein as having “a very strong source in Sadie Frost Law’s social circle or family” and said she would usually speak to Feinstein because that contact provided reliable information. Cross-examination by David Sherborne for the claimants focused on articles containing private details of conversations during the breakdown of the Law–Frost marriage and on whether the details had been obtained from voicemail messages.

What happens when Dailymail’s sourcing is questioned?

Sadie Frost told the court she distrusted friends at the time the stories were published but now “100%” believes the material about her was obtained by listening to her voicemails. The proceedings examined specific pieces Lampert wrote, including an article that referenced discussions about a substantial divorce settlement; solicitors for Jude Law later complained that the article wrongly suggested he had accepted that settlement and the newspaper published an apology.

Lampert defended her practice and her chain of sourcing. When challenged about a story that reported Frost had been proscribed sleeping pills, Lampert said such reporting would not be acceptable now but that it was “par for the course then. ” The hearing also revisited a story about Law telling the couple’s son during a car journey that he planned to marry another actress, and subsequent coverage of Frost’s anger at the way the engagement was communicated.

Sherborne suggested that the publisher could not properly address a complaint over one article because, he argued, the true source could not be revealed if it had arisen from phone hacking. Lampert rejected that line of questioning, reiterating she had relied on a trusted freelance intermediary and an “amazing human source. ” She maintained she did not listen to voicemails to obtain information.

The claimants allege “grave breaches of privacy” spanning many years; ANL denies wrongdoing and the court is continuing to hear contested evidence about sourcing and journalistic practices. The testimony so far has underscored a direct dispute between a former editor’s account of sourcing and a claimant’s conviction that private voicemail messages were unlawfully accessed, a conflict that remains central to the proceedings and the wider scrutiny of dailymail