High Court Dismisses Privacy Claims Against Daily Mail Publisher
The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, along with six other claimants, has lost a High Court privacy case against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants failed to prove allegations that the newspaper group engaged in unlawful information gathering. The case was brought by Prince Harry and several prominent figures who alleged that Associated Newspapers used illegal methods to obtain information for their stories, claims which the publisher strongly denied.
A spokesperson for Associated Newspapers described the judgment as an
"overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists".
Judge's Ruling and Evidence Assessment
In summarizing his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized that more convincing evidence was required to substantiate them. He stated that the seven claimants could not rely on
"suspicion, even where understandable"and that they needed to prove unlawful acquisition of information.
Among the claimants was Sir Elton John, who joined the case against Associated Newspapers.
The judge declined to determine whether unlawful information gathering was "widespread and habitual" at Associated Newspapers, opting instead to assess each individual claim on its merits. He accepted the denials from Associated Newspapers journalists, who provided lawful explanations for how they sourced the disputed articles and incidents.
Mr Justice Nicklin also ruled that the claimants did not prove that three senior executives at Associated Newspapers—former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, and current senior lawyer Elizabeth Hartley—had lied during their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, where they denied unlawful activity at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
Details of the Judgment
The full judgment spans 436 pages and examines each alleged breach of privacy in detail. The judge frequently noted that while there was suspicion regarding how journalists obtained information, suspicion alone was insufficient for proof.
For example, in a 2013 article, the Daily Mail's Royal Editor reported that Prince Harry faced a lonely New Year's Eve without his then-girlfriend Cressida Bonas. It was alleged that a freelance journalist was asked to "blag" travel details for Ms Bonas. Prince Harry described this in a witness statement as
"creepy"and expressed uncertainty about how the newspaper obtained information about their separate whereabouts.
Mr Justice Nicklin stated:
"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."
Actress Liz Hurley was also a claimant in the case.
Trial Proceedings and Witness Testimonies
Dozens of witnesses testified during the trial, including Prince Harry and other claimants, as well as current and former journalists and executives from Associated Newspapers who denied any illegal activity.
During the trial earlier in the year, Prince Harry became emotional while discussing the impact of the articles on himself and those close to him. He stated that Associated Newspapers had made the life of his wife, the Duchess of Sussex,
"an absolute misery".
Other claimants included 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, who was murdered in 1993.
Elizabeth Hurley was moved to tears when describing the effect of reporting on a paternity dispute involving her son with American businessman Steve Bing.
Prince Harry attended the trial in person, visibly angry as he argued that 14 articles were written using unlawfully obtained information about his private life.
Sadie Frost's claims concerned 11 articles, including a draft story about her ectopic pregnancy. Baroness Lawrence alleged that five articles relied on information
"stolen"about her and the investigation into her son Stephen's murder.
Regarding Sir Elton John and David Furnish, their barrister David Sherborne stated that details about the birth of their surrogate son—including his birth certificate—were published before the couple had received their own copy.
For Sir Simon Hughes, the barrister noted that the Mail was
"prepared to exploit his sexuality", referencing a 2006 incident when Hughes was publicly outed on the front page of the Sun newspaper.
Associated Newspapers denied all allegations made during the trial.
Reactions Following the Judgment
After the judgment was delivered, Sir Simon Hughes described the outcome as
"very disappointing"and stated he would
"take time to consider"the judge's findings.
Paul Dacre, Associated Newspapers' editor-in-chief and former Daily Mail editor, called the verdict a
"momentous victory".
An Associated Newspapers spokesperson said:
"Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the judge accepted the honesty of our journalists' evidence on how they sourced their stories. This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail's journalism."
The spokesperson added that the court case had
"wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs".
Paul Dacre also described the legal action as
"trumped-up"and said it
"should never have been brought to trial".
Next Steps and Context
A further hearing lasting two days is scheduled to take place from 29 July.
This case is the latest—and expected to be the final—in a series of legal battles Prince Harry has pursued against what he perceives as dishonest practices by the UK press.
In 2023, Prince Harry won 15 claims in a case against Mirror Group Newspapers, accusing them of unlawfully gathering information for stories about him. The previous year, the publisher of The Sun newspaper agreed to pay substantial damages and issued an apology to the Duke to settle a long-running legal dispute over unlawful intrusion claims.
Tuesday's verdict coincides with the beginning of a week of engagements in the UK for Prince Harry, starting with an event in London for the Invictus Games, a charity he founded to support injured military veterans.
