Prince Harry loses High Court privacy case against daily mail publisher

The Duke of Sussex has lost his High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, with a judge ruling that the claimants had failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering.

The Duke of Sussex has lost his High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, with a judge ruling that the claimants had failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering. Prince Harry brought the case along with six others, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, alleging that Associated Newspapers had used unlawful methods to obtain information for stories claims which were strenuously denied by the publisher.

In a joint statement following the ruling, Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence said: “We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither. It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.” A spokesperson for the publisher described the judgement as an “overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.”

Judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before being proven. He noted that the seven claimants could not rely on “suspicion, even where understandable,” and instead had to prove that information had been obtained unlawfully. The judge refused to make a finding on whether unlawful information gathering had become “widespread and habitual” at Associated Newspapers, instead deciding the merits of each individual claim. He said he accepted the denials of Associated Newspaper journalists “who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.”

In his full 436-page judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin examined each claimed breach of privacy, often noting that there was suspicion about how information was obtained. 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 a freelance journalist was asked to “blag” travel details for Ms Bonas. Prince Harry said in a witness statement this was “creepy” and he did not know how the newspaper could have obtained the information. 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.”

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. Dozens of people gave evidence during the trial, including Prince Harry, the other claimants, and many current and former journalists and executives who denied illegal activity. Prince Harry did not respond to the BBC’s questions about the judgement as he left an Invictus Games event in London.