Table Of ContentTHE HIGH COURT OF sUsTice
‘StaMS Wo: He11003354,
CHANCERY OVISION.
BETWEEN:
SADIE FROST
‘Gaimant
and
(2) news Group newspapers uMiTé0
(2) GLENN micHAEL MULCAIRE
Defendants
STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT
1
imant
In this action for misuse of private information, reach of confidence ard
hrorassment, | appear for the Claimant, My learned friend, Michael Sitverieat CC,
appears forthe First Defendant.
The Claimant is a former actrass and now successful business woman and fashion
designer. Between 199/ one 2003, she was married te Jude Law, with wnorn she has
3 young children.
‘The First Defendant was the publisher of the News of the World newspaper which
had @ considerable reac
hia in this jurisdiction and wrich also published its
content on its website www .newsotthewerld.com, The Second Defendant was 2
private investigater engaged by the "ist Deiendant ta carry oul various investigative
activities. His methods incluted bagging information ‘rom mobile phone companies
4nd the unlawful interception of voicemail messages.
4 Since 2003, the Fist Defendant has published a series of artices in the Nows of the
"Viera concerning the Caiant's pivate and fomiy fe. Many of these anicles
contained information, including medical information, that the Claimant die not
ow the source of As 2 result, she Caimant coule net understand how this pr vate
information was ending up in the public dumwin. Although tre articles would often
only contain a smal plece of accurate information, it was enough for the Claimant
to suspect everyone close to hes, and for the Claimant and Mr Law te suspect each
other
5. Over the same period, the Caimant experienced unusual actvity on her mobic
hones including hang up calls and mising voicemail messages. As o consequence,
‘the Cla man: became increasingly worried about her mobile phone security and che
changed fner phone number on a number of occasion, as well as her mabile shone
network
6, Despite at shese precautions, articles cariad on appeoring in the News af the
World, which contained extveriely private information. In addition to this,
Journalists and photographers always appeared to know where the Cisimant and
her children were goin tobe, even the location had only beun decided at the last
moment, This caused further distr st and suspicion between the Claimant and Me
Law, a5 well as others dase to them.
7. In 2034, after the commencement of Operation Weeting, the Claimant was
approached by the Metropolitan Police and shows pages of the Second
Gefendent’s roles showing that she had beer tergeted by the News of the World
over a consideratle periud of time. The Claimant was also played a number of
recorded messages thet she had loft on the vaicemal message service of her
“GhildFer'S ani ir 2005-2006, fade Schmit,
8 On 28 September 2011, the Claimant issued proceedings against the Frst and
Second Deferdants for misuse of private lafarmation, breach of confidence and
harassment
9. On 13 December 2021, the Fest Defendant made a series of extensive edassions in
relation to the general pactice of voicemail interception at the News of the We
Ithas aso become
and the First Defendart now accepls chat the Defendants
targeted the Claimant and the Claimant's voicemail messages in 2603-2006,
10.1 am here today ta announce that the First Defendant has accepted fsbilty end has
agreed to pay damages to the Claimant in the sm of £50,000 its her legal casts
Furthermore, both Defendants have also undertaken not to further access the
Clamane’s voicemail messages or to publsh unlowfully oblained private
Information about the Clsimart orto guther under surveillance
Counsel for the First Defendant
11. My Lord, on Eehalf of the Fist Gefendant, 1 confirm everything my Friend, Mr
‘Thomsen, has sai.
12. The Fest Defendant is here today through me to uffer is sincere apolog.es to the
‘leimant forthe damage, as well asthe dlstess, caused to herby the alegging of her
Confidential information fram sources and she accessing of her vo.remall messages
and the voicemail svessages left by the Caimant for other people. The Fist
Delerdant acknowledges that the information should never have been abtained or
used in the varner it was ard thet the First Defendant is liable for misuse of prvote
information, breach of corFidence ard harassment.
Solicitor Advocate for the Claimant
413. In che light of the order which tas been made and this statement, the Claimant
corsiders that she s wholly vincicated
Mark Thamson ‘Michael Sivecleaf ac
