A former showbusiness editor at the Daily Mail has denied allegations that she listened to voicemail messages left between actors Jude Law and Sadie Frost, as a high-profile privacy case against the newspaper’s publisher continues. Nicole Lampert, testifying in court on Tuesday, stated that stories she wrote about the couple’s relationship stemmed from an “amazing source” close to Frost, and were passed to the paper through a trusted freelance journalist. The case, brought by seven high-profile claimants including Frost and Prince Harry, accuses Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of “grave breaches of privacy” over a 20-year period.
The allegations center around articles published between 2003 and 2005, for which Lampert has a byline. Sadie Frost, appearing before the High Court earlier in January, asserted she “100%” believes stories about her were obtained through the hacking of her voicemails, describing the experience as a “violation.” She stated the Daily Mail put a “price on my head” for stories about her private life, according to a BBC report from January 26, 2026.
Denials and Source Testimony
Lampert, however, firmly denied ever listening to voicemail messages to gather information, dismissing the claim as “rubbish.” She identified Sharon Feinstein, a freelance journalist, as her primary source for information regarding Frost. Lampert explained that Feinstein “had a very strong source in Sadie Frost Law’s social circle or family and was able to gain excellent information from that source,” and that she regularly relied on Feinstein’s reporting. Lampert added that she was aware of Feinstein’s source and considered the information provided to be reliable.
This testimony directly contradicts Frost’s assertion that her voicemails were illegally accessed. Frost has claimed that published stories mirrored the content of her voicemails “word for word,” leading her to believe her phone had been hacked. The actress became emotional while giving evidence, recounting instances where she felt her privacy had been severely compromised.
Details of the Claim
Frost’s claim specifically relates to four articles published during the aforementioned period. Beyond the details of her relationship with Jude Law, the case also involves allegations that a reporter learned about her terminated pregnancy through a private investigator. Frost revealed in a written statement that she only disclosed the termination to the father, Jackson Scott, and “maybe” a close friend. The alleged unlawful gathering of information for articles that were not published is also part of the claim.
The case has brought to light disturbing allegations of intrusive journalism practices. Frost recounted a specific incident in 2002 where she believed a call to her then-husband, Jude Law, was bugged, revealing that their two-year-old daughter had accidentally swallowed part of an ecstasy tablet at a children’s party. The subsequent press attention caused significant distress, according to Frost’s testimony.
ANL’s Response and Ongoing Legal Battle
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has consistently denied all wrongdoing in relation to Frost and the other claimants, which include Prince Harry. The publisher maintains its journalistic practices were lawful, and ethical. The legal proceedings are ongoing, with the court examining evidence presented by both sides to determine whether privacy breaches occurred.
The case is significant as it raises broader questions about the boundaries of press intrusion and the protection of privacy in the public eye. The outcome could set a precedent for future cases involving allegations of unlawful information gathering by the media. The BBC reported on February 22, 2026, that Lampert was the first witness to give evidence in the ongoing privacy case.
The allegations against the Daily Mail echo similar controversies that have plagued other British news organizations in the past, leading to public inquiries and reforms in journalistic standards. This case, however, focuses specifically on the practices of Associated Newspapers Limited and its showbusiness reporting.
The High Court is expected to hear further evidence in the coming weeks, with a judgment anticipated later this year. The claimants are seeking substantial damages for the alleged breaches of privacy and a commitment from ANL to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. Updates on the case can be found through official court listings and reporting from reputable news organizations.
As the trial progresses, the focus remains on establishing whether ANL engaged in unlawful practices to obtain information and whether the privacy of the claimants was indeed violated. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have lasting implications for the relationship between the press and public figures in the UK.
Readers affected by issues raised in this story can find support and resources through organizations like the National Victims of Crime Assistance Network at victimconnect.org.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for March 10, 2026, where further evidence will be presented regarding the alleged hacking of claimant voicemails. Stay tuned to time.news for continuing coverage of this developing story.
What are your thoughts on the allegations? Share your comments below and share this article with your network.
