Prince Harry Loses Privacy Lawsuit Against Daily Mail Publisher Associated Newspapers Limited

Prince Harry, the estranged younger son of King Charles, and other high-profile British figures lost their privacy lawsuits against the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited, in London’s High Court on Tuesday.

“Prince Harry, the estranged younger son of King Charles, has lost a privacy lawsuit he launched with other high-profile British figures against the publisher of the bestselling newspaper the Daily Mail, in a verdict he called a “complete and obvious whitewash””

Al Jazeera

Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled that although the claimants suspected journalists at the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had used unlawful methods to obtain information, they had not proved this, and the court rejected the idea that private information alone meant it was unlawfully sourced.

Al Jazeera

The case involved allegations that dozens of stories published from the early 1990s to 2011 were based on information obtained unlawfully, including claims of voicemail interception, phone hacking, and obtaining personal information through deception.

Harry, who has long blamed the press for the 1997 Paris car crash that killed his mother, Princess Diana, had previously testified in January while holding back tears as he said the Daily Mail had made Meghan’s life “an absolute misery.”

The ruling dismissed the group’s claims after the judge said suspicion was not enough, and the claimants’ allegations were dismissed in their entirety on Tuesday.

In a joint statement, Prince Harry and Doreen Lawrence said the verdict was “not altogether unexpected,” while also calling “The lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”

Harry described the decision as “a complete and obvious whitewash,” and Associated Newspapers said the ruling was “an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists and for a free press generally.”

BBC

The court’s reasoning, as summarized in the ruling, was that “the relevant article must have been unlawfully sourced” was not established merely because Associated could not positively explain how information was sourced.

Associated Newspapers’ legal position was that its journalists relied on legitimate sources, including friends, royal aides and publicists, while the claimants alleged unlawful information gathering by private investigators.

Paul Dacre, Associated’s long-serving former editor, said in a statement that he “feel[s] sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case,” as he accused Harry of hypocrisy.

The Guardian reported that Prince Harry and six other prominent figures could face a legal bill of up to £50m after losing their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail over claims it used unlawful methods to source stories.

“- Published The Duke of Sussex and six others have lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday”

BBC

The Guardian also said the 436-page written verdict from Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the group’s claims because the claimants had not proved that any information had been obtained unlawfully, and that the court could not simply infer wrongdoing if a legitimate and realistic legal way to source the story remained.

The ruling came as Harry was in the United Kingdom for a week of engagements connected to the Invictus Games, with the event scheduled for 2027 in Birmingham, central England.

In the USA Today account, the judgment was handed down remotely, and the written judgement said the claims had been dismissed, while Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence said the decision “represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the court room itself.”

Associated Newspapers said it would seek to recover its costs after a trial it said cost more than £50 million ($66.8 million) in total, framing the outcome as a vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.