Claims that the publisher of the Daily Mail sourced stories using unlawful methods have been dismissed by a High Court judge, who said there was not enough evidence to support many of the allegations.
What is the case about?
A group of seven household names, including the Duke of Sussex, alleged that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) carried out or commissioned unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. ANL strongly denied the claims and defended the case, saying it “has established a complete defence to all parts of the claims on the merits”, and that the cases have been brought too late.
What other names are involved?
As well as Harry, the claimants included Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, actress Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and politician Sir Simon Hughes.
What happened at the trial?
Over an 11-week trial at the High Court in London, dozens of people gave evidence, including the group of household names and many current or former ANL journalists and executives. During about two hours of cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in” and claimed “knowingly false” information was added to stories to hide unlawful activity. ANL said that Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists provided a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles”.
What did the judge rule?
In an 436-page judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all of the claims. The judge said the high-profile group had asked the court to find that because information published was private and because ANL could not positively explain how articles were sourced, then they must have been done so unlawfully. He said this was “not a permissible approach”. The judge also discussed individual articles that were at the centre of the allegations, such as a 2004 story about his relationship with Chelsy Davy where Daily Mail reporter Sam Greenhill was alleged to have used voicemail interception. Mr Justice Nicklin said “no explanation” was given as to whose voicemail was intercepted, adding that “the suggestion was unsupported and inherently implausible”. He dismissed each of the individuals’ claims.
What happens next?
ANL has said it will look to recover its costs, adding that the total for the legal action came to more than £50 million. Sir Simon said he will “take time to consider the lengthy judgment in detail” and the others are yet to comment. A further hearing has been set for July 29 and 30 to consider legal costs and any other disputes coming from the judgment.
