Mail

March 2 (UPI) — The royal editor for The Daily Mail on Monday denied using a private investigator to steal information about Prince Harry and his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy.

Prince Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd., which owns The Daily Mail, along with six other plaintiffs including Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, for using information they obtained illegally.

ANL denies all wrongdoing and said it gathered all information for its stories legally.

The testimony Monday mostly hinged on Mike Behr, a South Africa-based private investigator. Rebecca English, royal editor, said she knew Behr only as “a freelance journalist who could help on Africa stories,” The Guardian reported.

Lawyers asked English about an email from Behr that shared the exact flights that Davy was taking on a vacation with Harry in 2007.

Behr asked in the email if English and the Sun reporter “can plant someone next to her?”

Plaintiffs’ lawyer David Sherborne said the email “could only have been obtained from the computer system” of an airline. That means it came from a “blag” — British slang for a way of obtaining information illegally.

English responded that she didn’t remember the email or ask for those flight details.

“[Behr] was never asked for anything like this, ever,” she said. “That is something I would never even consider doing, now or then,” The Guardian reported.

Sherborne asked about planting someone next to Davy, and English replied: “It’s an absolutely shameful suggestion both by him and by you … clearly there’s no reply to this email, which emphasizes my belief that I never actually saw it.”

He then accused her of using illegal information in a story about a “make-or-break holiday” for the couple. But English said the information was likely from students at the University of Leeds, where Davy was enrolled, “who were friends with Chelsy Davy and part of her circle.”

Sherborne also asked English about a story with the headline, “How Harry fell in love,” from 2004. The story alleged that Harry had shared details of his relationship with Davy with friends at a campfire in Botswana. English said the campfire info came from her coworker Sam Greenhill.

“Sam told me that one of the people that Prince Harry had spoken with ’round the campfire got in touch with the newspaper when news of the relationship broke and gave this information to us,” The Independent reported.

“Prince Harry hadn’t told them who his girlfriend was but had described her so that, when the stories about Chelsy Davy broke, they realized the significance of what they had been told.

“I thought at the time that the tip was from a contact of Sam’s, but now understand it just came in to the news desk. I think that Sam gave it to me because he knew that I was new to my job as a royal reporter and thought it might be helpful to me.”

Harry testified last month that the people at the campfire — his “closest friends” — would not have shared that information, and if they had, there “would be a lot more out there.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the U.S. Postal Service is shielded from being sued even if its employees intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said Congress in 1946 had barred lawsuits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” and that includes mail that is stolen or misdirected by postal employees.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law broadly bars complaints involving lost or missing mail.

“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,” he said.

The ruliing is a setback but not a final defeat for Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent who is Black. She had sued contending white postal carriers refused to deliver her mail to two houses where she rented rooms.

She did not live at either property but said she stayed there “from time to time.”

She first complained to the post office in Euless, Texas, after she learned the mail carrier had changed the listed owner on a central postal box from Konan’s name to a tenant’s name.

After two years of frustration, she sued the United States in 2022 alleging the Postal Service had intentionally and wrongly withheld her mail. She sought damages for emotional distress, a loss of rental income and for racial discrimination.

Her claim of racial bias was dismissed by a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court and did not figure in the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the 5th Circuit Court ruled she could go forward with her suit alleging she was a victim of intentional misconduct on the part of postal employees.

The Biden and Trump administrations urged the court to hear the case and to reject lawsuits against the Postal Service based on claims of intentional wrongdoing.

They said the 5th Circuit’s ruling could “open the floodgates of litigation.” They noted the Postal Service delivers about 113 billion pieces of mail per year and receives about 335,000 complaints over lost mail and other matters.

“We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas said. “We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.”

Joining Thomas to limit lawsuits against the Postal Service were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law refers to a “loss” or “miscarriage” of the mail, which suggests negligence.

“Today, the court holds that one exception — the postal exception — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail,” Sotomayor wrote.

Joining her were Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.