by Alice WatkinsAfter years of denials that phone hacking and other illegal acts occurred at the Daily Mail, a ruling issued today has rejected the newspaper’s application to throw out claims of phone tapping and other illegal activities on behalf of claimants - Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Prince Harry, Sadie Frost, Simon Hughes and Elizabeth Hurley.As well as phone hacking and listening to live phone calls, the Mail is also accused of bugging some of the claimants’ homes and stealing private medical information.Allegations against the paper go back to 2006, when the Information Commissioner named the Daily Mail among newspapers which had dealt with a firm of private investigators involved in the illegal trade of personal information. What Price Privacy Now? reported that the Mail had used the firm the most - with 952 transactions by 58 journalists.And in 2012, Hugh Grant reported his suspicions that the Daily Mail had hacked his phone to the Leveson Inquiry. But the Mail accused Grant of lying, spreading “mendacious smears” against the newspaper.Below are all the times that the Daily Mail and its publisher Associated Newspapers denied phone hacking occurred at the newspaper.18 July 2011 | Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre ‘never approved hacking’Daily Mail Editor in Chief Paul Dacre told a parliamentary committee hearing on 18 July 2011 that he had never “countenanced” phone hacking or blagging at his newspaper.He was asked if the Mail had ever published a story which he knew, or later found to be based on a hacked message he said “absolutely not”. “Have I ever countenanced hacking or blagging? No.”26 July 2011 | No phone hacking at Daily Mail Group says CEOMartin Morgan, DMGT Chief Executive said “The board has received assurances that our titles have not published stories based on hacked messages.”21 November 2011 | The Mail on Sunday denies Hugh Grant’s claim that his phone was hackedA spokesman said: “The Mail on Sunday utterly refutes Hugh Grant’s claim that they got any story as a result of phone hacking.'In fact in the case of the story Mr Grant refers to, the information came from a freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to Jemima Khan.’30 November 2011 | We utterly refute Hugh Grant’s allegations: Associated Newspapers’ response to Leveson Inquiry claims in fullAssociated Newspapers issued two statements following Hugh Grant’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.“The Mail on Sunday utterly refutes Hugh Grant’s claim that they got any story as a result of phone hacking. In fact, in the case of the story Mr Grant refers to, the information came from a freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to Jemima Khan”.“The Daily Mail unequivocally denies Hugh Grant’s allegation that it secured information about the birth of his child from a source at the hospital.“In fact the information came from a source in his show business circle more than two weeks after the birth. We then spent a further two weeks seeking a response to the story from his publicists. None was forthcoming and indeed we did not publish anything until Grant’s publicist issued a statement describing the baby as the product of a ‘fleeting affair’. Throughout the Mail behaved with total journalistic propriety”.12 January 2012 | Hugh Grant got his facts wrong, by the Mail's legal chiefLiz Hartley, head of editorial legal services at Associated Newspapers, which publishes the two titles, rejected the actor’s claims.She told the inquiry into Press standards that information about the baby originated from a show business source ‘within Mr Grant’s celebrity circle’ and the second story was provided by a ‘trusted’ source who spoke regularly to the star’s then girlfriend Jemima Khan.6 February 2012 | Dacre stands by Hugh Grant mendacious smears jibeAssociated Newspapers accused Hugh Grant of spreading ‘mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media.”At the Leveson Inquiry Paul Dacre defended the response. He said “We agreed on the form of words ‘it was a mendacious smear’ adding ‘our witness statements made clear that Associated was not involved in phone-hacking”.“I have never placed a story in the Daily Mail as a result of phone-hacking … I know of no cases of phone-hacking, having conducted a major internal inquiry I’m as confident as I can be that there’s no phone hacking on the Daily Mail … and no editor, not the editor of The Guardian or The Independent, could say otherwise.”9th February 2012 | Dacre gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry about his views on regulation, but he was later recalled to answer accusations made against the Mail by Hugh GrantQ. But in these circumstances, Mr Dacre, can you honestly be 100 per cent certain, having looked into it, that this story was not based on information which had somehow been accessed from Mr Grant's voicemails?Paul Dacre said “I can be as confident as any editor, having made extensive enquiries into his newspaper's practices and held an inquiry, that phone hacking was not practised by the Daily Mail or the Mail on Sunday. You know that because I gave my unequivocal, unequivocal assurances earlier in this week”.Dacre said, "I'm not going to speak for other newspapers. I will speak for Associated Newspapers and I've told this Inquiry, I cannot be any more unequivocal, that all my enquiries and all the evidence I've received, and having spoken to the editor of my group: our group did not hack phones, and I rather resent your continued insinuations that we did".You can watch his statement in full here.Why is this ruling significant?If phone hacking did occur at Mail titles, and Paul Dacre is found to have been aware of it, he could have knowingly misled the Leveson Inquiry on oath.Significantly, as well as high profile individuals (Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley) who allege that they are victims of illegal acts, including phone hacking by the newspaper - the claimants include Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence who was murdered in a racially aggravated attack in 1993.Former editor Paul Dacre has always championed the newspaper’s role in bringing Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to justice, citing the paper’s coverage as evidence that the Mail is a newspaper which serves the interests of the public.But the unlawful conduct alleged in these claims would have occurred over the period Paul Dacre was editor.Yes, it is the famous targets of press abuse we see splashed across the headlines but from what we already know, around three quarters of those illegally hacked by newspapers were ordinary people.The bereaved, victims of crime, friends of the famous, police officers, people in witness protection. Only a minority of victims were actually well-known or high profile celebrities.BBC documentary, Scandalous: Phone Hacking on Trial a number of victims spoke about the profound and lingering effects of press intrusion.Leveson Part TwoIn the years since the hacking scandal first broke, successive governments have been repeatedly warned about the prospect of further evidence and allegations against the Mail. Not least by Hacked Off supporters, who have signed several petitions over the years urging Leveson Part Two – the Inquiry to examine evidence of further corruption and wrongdoing in the press, police, and among politicians – to go ahead.But the Government ignored the views of thousands on this issue. In 2018, they cancelled the inquiry after fierce lobbying from the Mail and other newspapers.The Daily Mail now faces a lengthy court battle over these allegations, which include illegal spying - not just hacking phones but bugging cars and listening to private conversations.We will never get to the bottom of the phone hacking scandal without a judicial inquiry, which the victims of press abuse and the public were promised.Unearthing the true reach of the scandal and holding those responsible to account is integral to building a better press which works for everyone and restoring trust in the industry.The Government must reinstate Leveson Part Two now.