A shocking revelation has emerged in the ongoing court case involving former Daily Mail showbiz editor, Amy Lampert, and the alleged hacking of Sadie Frost's voicemails. This scandal, which dates back to articles published between 2003 and 2005, has sparked a heated debate about the ethics of journalism and the lengths some will go to for a story.
But here's where it gets controversial...
Lampert, when giving evidence, vehemently denied ever listening to voicemails for story information, calling the claim "rubbish." She asserted that the details in one article were either public knowledge or sourced from a trusted freelance contact, Sharon Feinstein.
"Sharon had an incredible source within Sadie Frost's inner circle, and I always relied on her for accurate information," Lampert explained.
David Sherborne, representing the claimants, pressed Lampert on a series of articles detailing private conversations between Frost and her ex-husband, Jude Law, during their divorce. One article even mentioned a £10 million divorce settlement, which later prompted an apology from the Daily Mail after Law's solicitors disputed the accuracy of the claim.
Sherborne suggested the newspaper's inability to challenge the complaint was due to the information being obtained through phone hacking, a claim Lampert strongly refuted.
"I had an incredible human source through Sharon Feinstein's contact. We would never report such sensitive information now, but it was a different era then," Lampert defended.
The court also heard about an article detailing Frost's anger over how Law informed their son of his engagement to Sienna Miller. Sherborne suggested Lampert had listened to voicemails to obtain this information, a claim she again denied.
"You had access to the primary source, didn't you?" Sherborne pressed. "Rubbish," Lampert replied.
This case, which includes Prince Harry among the claimants, has accused ANL of systematic unlawful information gathering practices, including the use of private investigators and blagging, between 1993 and 2018.
The case continues, and with such serious allegations, it's sure to keep the public and media alike captivated for the next nine weeks.
What are your thoughts on this controversial case? Do you think Lampert's explanations hold water, or is there more to this story than meets the eye? We'd love to hear your opinions in the comments below!
