Former Daily Mail Showbusiness Editor Denies Hacking Sadie Frost's Voicemails
In a recent court testimony, the former Daily Mail showbusiness editor has vehemently denied allegations of hacking Sadie Frost's voicemails. The dispute stems from four articles published between 2003 and 2005, for which the editor, Lampert, has a byline. During her testimony, Lampert emphatically stated that she had "never" listened to voicemail messages to obtain information for stories, dismissing the claim as "rubbish".
She further elaborated that the information in one of the articles was either already in the public domain or "almost certainly came from a freelance contact" identified as Sharon Feinstein. According to Lampert, Sharon had a strong source within Sadie Frost's social circle or family, providing excellent information. She confirmed that this source was reliable and known to her.
David Sherbone, representing the claimants, questioned Lampert about a series of articles containing private details of conversations between Sadie Frost and her ex-husband, Law, during their divorce. Sherborne suggested that the information was obtained by listening to their phone messages, but Lampert strongly denied this, stating, "No, I did not, never." She maintained that the information came from Feinstein's contact, an "amazing human source" via a trusted freelance journalist.
When asked about an article reporting on Frost's prescription sleeping pills, Lampert acknowledged that such information wouldn't be reported today, but it was "par for the course" at the time. The court also heard about a story concerning Law's decision to reveal his plans to marry actress Sienna Miller to their son during a car journey, which sparked Frost's anger. Sherborne suggested that Lampert had obtained this information by listening to voicemail messages, but she again denied this, stating, "Rubbish."
The claimants, including Prince Harry, have accused ANL of "clear, systematic, and sustained use of unlawful information gathering" for stories between 1993 and "beyond" 2018, including through private investigators and "blagging". The case is ongoing and is expected to last nine weeks. This case has sparked a debate about the ethics of information gathering in journalism, and many are left wondering whether the line between investigative journalism and illegal activities is blurred.
