Prince Harry has been dealt a fresh blow over his privacy legal battle case after a judge dismissed his and others’ claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher.
As reported by The Sun, Harry, 41, was one of seven claimants seeking damages from Associated Newspapers Limited, which publishes the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The group also included Sir Elton John, actress Elizabeth Hurley and campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
They alleged journalists used unlawful methods to gather information. The claims included hiring private investigators, placing listening devices in cars, blagging private records and tapping private phone conversations.
ANL denied the allegations and argued the claims came too late.
In a big ruling on Tuesday, judge Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the allegations. The ruling marked a major setback for Harry and the other claimants. Harry has now issued a statement.
Why the Prince Harry legal battle flared up again
The Sun said the ruling came just hours after Harry returned to the UK for a five-day trip.
He flew in from Montecito, California. He appeared in London on Tuesday at Chatham House for the first in a series of events linked to the 2027 Invictus Games.
That timing pushed Prince Harry’s legal battle back into the spotlight. Harry has fought several high-profile disputes with parts of the British press.
Prince Harry has brought or joined several legal actions involving UK newspaper publishers.
- He was one of the claimants in the case against Associated Newspapers Limited over alleged unlawful information gathering.
- He has also pursued claims linked to Mirror Group Newspapers over unlawful information gathering.
- He has been involved in litigation concerning News Group Newspapers.
- His cases have focused on allegations including phone hacking, voicemail interception and other unlawful methods of obtaining private information.
During around two hours of cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.
In written evidence, he also claimed “knowingly false” information had been added to stories to “put me off the scent”. He said that concealed unlawful methods, including voicemail interception.
Harry also grew emotional in court. He said the case had been a “horrible experience” for his family.
What this defeat could mean for Harry’s next move
ANL said its journalists could give a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles”.
The publisher said those sources included friends, “leaky” social circles, press officers, spokespersons, previous reporting, freelance journalists and reports from other newspapers and agencies.
Associated Newspapers Limited is the publisher named in the case.
- It publishes the Daily Mail.
- It also publishes The Mail on Sunday.
- In court, ANL denied the allegations made by the claimants.
- The publisher argued the claims were brought too late.
Mr Justice Nicklin said in the 436-page ruling: “For the reasons given in this judgment, each of the claimants’ claims is dismissed.”
Associated Newspapers said that the High Court ruling was an “overwhelming victory”. They added that it was a “magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.
Prince Harry speaks out
In a statement, Harry and Baroness Lawrence said: “We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.
“This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous Judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (who were represented by, at the time, the Judge who made this decision). Generic findings about various private investigators that were held by the Courts in these parallel claims to have carried out unlawful activity at the very same time in relation to similar stories and well-known individuals have been wholly ignored. The fact that this Court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the courtroom itself.”
It continued: “It is a complete and obvious whitewash. But sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.
“When the Court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, despite the documents showing otherwise, then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved.
“It feels here like one rule for the newspapers and another for the claimants. While the Claimants presented evidence, Mail journalists simply gave denials. The Court chose uncritically to believe them, even in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and blatant untruths that were obvious to neutral observers in Court when compared to the documents.
“We presented to the Court evidence which we believed was compelling at the time and remains so now. We would like to thank our legal team for all their hard work. And all the witnesses who were brave enough to come forward in the pursuit of justice.”
Read more: King Charles ‘refuses to be pushed around’ amid Prince Harry’s UK visit