The Duke of Sussex and six other individuals have lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Judge Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers.
Details of the Case
Prince Harry brought the case alongside several well-known figures, including actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, singer Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Simon Hughes, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the Labour peer and mother of Stephen Lawrence. They claimed that the newspaper group used unlawful methods to obtain information for stories, allegations that Associated Newspapers strenuously denied.
A spokesperson for the publisher described the judgment as an “overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.” The prince did not respond to the BBC’s questions about the judgment as he left an Invictus Games event in London.
The Judge's Ruling
In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before being proven. He said the seven claimants could not rely on “suspicion, even where understandable.” Instead, they had to prove that information had been obtained unlawfully.
Mr Justice Nicklin refused to make a finding on whether unlawful information gathering had become “widespread and habitual” at Associated Newspapers and instead decided the merits of each individual claim. He accepted the denials of Associated Newspapers journalists “who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.”
Allegations Against Senior Executives
The judge also ruled that the claimants had failed to prove that three senior Associated executives—former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, and current senior lawyer Elizabeth Hartley—had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, where they stated there was no unlawful activity at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
In his full 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin examined each claimed breach of privacy and often noted suspicion about how information was obtained by journalists. In one article, the Daily Mail’s Royal Editor wrote in 2013 that Prince Harry faced a lonely New Year’s Eve without his girlfriend Cressida Bonas. It was claimed that a freelance journalist was asked to “blag” travel details for Ms Bonas. Prince Harry said in a witness statement that this was “creepy” and he did not know how the newspaper could have obtained the information about the couple’s separate whereabouts.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “I accept that he found the article intrusive and was genuinely concerned by how journalists appeared to know private information concerning his relationships. But suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof.”
Evidence and Impact
Dozens of people gave evidence during the trial, including Prince Harry and the other claimants, as well as many current and former Associated Newspapers journalists and executives who denied illegal activity. During the trial at the beginning of the year, Prince Harry became emotional when talking about the impact of the articles on himself and those close to him, and said Associated Newspapers had made the life of his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, “an absolute misery.”
