A former editor of the Daily Mail's showbiz section is embroiled in a scandal, accused of hacking into celebrity voicemails. But was it all just good journalism or a breach of privacy? The case of Sadie Frost's alleged voicemail hacking has the media world divided.
The spotlight is on ex-editor X, who vehemently denies accessing Frost's voicemails, despite claims related to four articles published between 2003 and 2005. X's defense? A trusted freelance journalist and their 'amazing human source'.
X testified that they never listened to voicemails for stories, dismissing the allegation as nonsense. They explained that the information was either public knowledge or obtained from a freelance contact, Sharon Feinstein, who had a close connection to Frost's inner circle.
But here's where it gets controversial: X's articles included intimate details of conversations between Frost and her then-husband during their marital struggles. One article even mentioned a £10 million divorce settlement, which Law's solicitors disputed, leading to a published apology.
The claimants' lawyer, David Sherborne, suggested the newspaper couldn't refute the complaint because the information was likely obtained through phone hacking. X refuted this, standing by their freelance source.
X's response to an article about Frost's sleeping pill prescription? 'Times have changed.' Yet, the court also heard about a story revealing Law's plan to marry actress Sienna Miller, which allegedly came from a voicemail.
Sherborne pressed X, implying that voicemails were the primary source. X's unwavering response? 'Absolutely not.'
The case, which includes Prince Harry among the claimants, accuses the newspaper of unlawful information gathering, including hiring private investigators. With the trial expected to last nine weeks, the question remains: Where do we draw the line between investigative journalism and invasion of privacy?
