David Furnish calls alleged hacks of him and Elton John an ‘abomination’ | David Furnish

David Furnish said it was “abhorrent” that the publisher of the Daily Mail could write “narrow-minded” stories about him and his husband Elton John, using information allegedly obtained by illegal means.

In evidence submitted to the High Court, Furnish said he and John were “violated” by the Mail, after being told it had worked with private investigators to intercept their phone calls and personal details.

“Although The Mail has partly changed with the times, it has also published countless critical and narrow-minded stories about us – articles clearly designed to undermine who we are and how we live our lives,” Furnish said in a written note.

“Knowing that they were able to do this to us through stolen information, hiring private investigators on us, tapping our landlines and recording our live phone calls is abhorrent.”

Furnish and John are part of a group of seven claimants, including Prince Harry, who accuse Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) of ordering the illegal collection of information to secure stories.

ANL denies all accusations. In written submissions, ANL’s legal team said all allegations made in relation to Furnish and John were “baseless and unsupported by the evidence before the court”.

She said the challenged articles were variously sourced from journalists’ communications, the couple’s spokesperson, statements from their office, independent journalists, photographers, news agencies, and previous articles.

Furnish, who gave evidence to the High Court via a sometimes faulty video link, said he initially assumed the stories must have come from leaks. However, he said his girlfriend, actress Elizabeth Hurley, contacted him in February 2021 about allegations of the Post being used for illegal tactics.

“We are very grateful that Elizabeth contacted us,” he said in a written note. “If you had not done so, we would never have known what happened and we would never have known that the law had been broken and our home and private life had been broken into and violated by mail.”

Hurley told them of allegations that a private investigator, Gavin Burrows, admitted intercepting and recording live phone conversations at their Windsor home for the Mail on Sunday.

However, ANL said Burroughs has now stated that he has “never been involved in any investigative work relating to Elton John” and has “never intercepted communications relating to…anyone else associated with Elton John”.

John and Furnish allege that voicemail intercepts and other illegal information gathering techniques were used in 10 articles, published from 2000 to 2015. They also allege two separate episodes of illegal information gathering, which did not lead to an article.

The couple alleges that a 2009 article about John canceling tour dates because he was sick was developed through illegal access to John’s medical information. However, ANL’s lawyer, Catherine Evans, said the information was taken from a medical statement from “John’s own website” and from statements from their spokesman.

However, Furnish said they were concerned about the “specific details” about his treatment in the article.

The couple claimed that another article from August 2015, about John falling ill in Monaco, also contained private information. However, Evans said similar information had appeared in the French press.

Evans suggested that Furnish’s social circle would provide information to reporters. Furnish said his friends knew not to share private information about his family. He said that although he may engage in “harmless gossip,” he has mastered “the art of not saying anything” when confronted by journalists.

ANL also said that John’s former spokesman and media publisher, Gary Farrow, “regularly provides the media, including associated journalists, with information about their lives”. She said this included health and medical information that the couple was now complaining about.

It said the claimants’ researchers and legal team were simply trying to link the private investigators’ payment records to articles that were “loosely close in time to the payment history”, which they claimed they believed contained “hallmarks” of illegal activity.

ANL’s legal team said this approach was “not supported by any evidence before the court and is completely baseless”.

The case continues.