The High Court has dismissed all claims brought by Prince Harry and fellow claimants, including Elton John, David Furnish, Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and former Liberal Democrat minister Simon Hughes.
The Duke of Sussex has suffered a major legal blow after losing his privacy lawsuit case against the Daily Mail’s publisher.
The group had accused the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline of using unlawful methods to gather information for stories published between the 1990s and 2015.
Dozens of journalists and private investigators were named in the group’s claims.
After a 46-day trial, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had failed to prove their allegations that Associated Newspapers had obtained private information unlawfully through methods including phone hacking, “blagging” (obtaining information by deception), hiring private investigators and making corrupt payments.
In his 436-page judgment, the judge said the court could not simply infer that an article had been obtained unlawfully if there remained a legitimate and realistic legal way in which it could have been sourced. He also dismissed suggestions that senior figures at the publisher, including former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, had lied during the Leveson Inquiry when denying that phone hacking had taken place at the newspaper.
The ruling marks a significant setback for Harry, who has made challenging Britain’s tabloid press a central focus in recent years.
Harry was in London attending an Invictus Games event at Chatham House when the long-awaited ruling was handed down. Despite likely learning of the decision only moments before appearing publicly, he gave no outward indication of disappointment as he arrived for the engagement.
“Obvious whitewash”
In a joint statement following the judgment, Harry and fellow claimant Doreen Lawrence described the outcome as “a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.”
“When the court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing … then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved,” the statement continued.
Associated Newspapers described the ruling as “an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.”
A spokesperson added: “This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism. For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.
“The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated. As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.”
The publisher also said: “Associated Newspapers thanks Mr. Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs. We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.”
Former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre also welcomed the verdict, describing the case as a “conspiracy” orchestrated by press regulation campaigners to “destroy a paper”. He said he would “never be able to comprehend” why Doreen Lawrence had joined the case after the newspaper had “campaigned for justice for her son for over two decades”.
Dacre also said he had sympathy for Harry, whom he described as a “confused and angry young man”, adding that his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, had “liked the Mail. We were her paper.”
The case formed part of Harry’s wider campaign against sections of the British press. In his witness statement, Harry said he felt compelled to take legal action after what he described as “vicious” and “sometimes racist” coverage of Meghan following the start of their relationship in 2016.
“In late 2016, when my relationship with Meghan, my now wife, became public, I started to become increasingly troubled by the approach of not taking action against the press in the wake of vicious persistent attacks on, harassment of and intrusive, sometimes racist articles concerning Meghan. The situation got worse when she became pregnant and after our son, Archie, was born,” he said.
“Absolute misery”
When Harry gave evidence during the trial earlier this year, he accused the British tabloids of continuing to target him and making Meghan’s life “an absolute misery.”
“By standing up here and taking a stand against them, this has continued to come after me,” Prince Harry said. “And they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my Lord.”
“Through the course of this litigation, it’s only got worse, not better,” he told the court. “It’s fundamentally wrong to put all of us through all of this again. What’s required is an apology and some accountability. It’s a horrible experience.”
Alongside his legal battles with newspaper publishers, Harry has also fought to have his police protection reinstated in the U.K. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex lost their automatic security after stepping back as working royals and relocating to California in 2020.
Harry travelled to London without Meghan or their children — Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five — despite earlier plans for the family to return to the U.K. together because of ongoing security concerns, although no decision has been made on whether they will join him for other parts of his visit outside London.
Despite this latest defeat, Harry has achieved victories in other legal battles with the media. Meghan previously won her privacy case against the Mail on Sunday over the publication of her handwritten letter to her father, receiving symbolic damages of £1. Harry also reached a settlement with the publisher of The Sun, which included an eight-figure damages payment and an apology acknowledging unlawful actions.
A further hearing is due to take place on July 29 and 30 to determine any outstanding issues arising from the judgment, including costs.
