Prince Harry has just lost a monumental legal battle against the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, after claiming it had intercepted his voicemail to write stories. The Duke of Sussex and six other claimants, including Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, brought a case arguing that the publisher used unlawful methods to gather information. However, Judge Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants failed to prove the allegations, stating that the case required more convincing evidence and could not rely on 'suspicion, even where understandable.' A spokesperson for the publisher described the judgment as an 'overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.'
Unlawful Information Gathering Case
Prince Harry sued Associated Newspapers over 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013. He claimed that the Daily Mail publisher used unlawful methods for gathering information, including voicemail hacking. In a witness statement, Harry told the High Court that he did not see 'why Associated should get away with something they have covered up and lied about for however many years.' He appeared on the verge of tears, stating that the publisher had 'made my wife’s life an absolute misery' and continued to 'come after me.' Despite this, the judge dismissed the case, emphasizing that the allegations were serious and required more convincing evidence.
News Group Newspapers Settlement
In January 2025, the Duke settled a claim against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World. For years, Harry alleged that journalists and private investigators targeted him on behalf of the publisher between 1996 and 2011. Just 10 weeks before trial, the parties settled outside of court. The deal included a 'full and unequivocal apology' and a 'substantial' damages payment. NGN apologized for phone hacking, surveillance, misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators at the News of the World, and 'incidents of unlawful activities' by private investigators working for The Sun. It also apologized for the impact of the 'serious intrusion' into the private life of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.
Charity Libel Case
The Duke is being sued for defamation by Sentebale, a charity he co-founded and worked with for 19 years before stepping down as a patron. A spokesman for Sentebale, which supports young people in southern Africa, said the court action is due to an alleged 'adverse media campaign' that they claim has caused disruption and 'reputational harm' to the charity and its leadership. The charity seeks the court's 'intervention, protection, and restitution' against the alleged campaign, which it claims undermined the charity and its efforts. A spokesman for Prince Harry and another former trustee, Mark Dyer, who is also being sued, said: 'They categorically reject these offensive and damaging claims.'
Home Office Security Challenge
The high-level security protections given to senior royals were stripped from the Sussexes when they left the UK and quit royal duties in 2020. The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) told Prince Harry he would no longer be given the 'same degree' of personal protective security when visiting the UK. Prince Harry launched a claim against the Home Office to reinstate the protections, but he lost this battle in 2024 and the subsequent appeal last year. Now his security is decided on a 'case-by-case' basis. In an emotional interview after the May 2025 ruling, Harry said he 'can't see a world' in which he would bring his family back to the UK. This reality has played out this week, with the Duke arriving back in the UK without his wife, Meghan Markle, and his children Archie and Lilibet after his request for security was denied, having initially planned to travel together.
Libel Claim Against Associated Newspapers
Harry was previously in another battle with Associated Newspapers over a Mail on Sunday article in February 2022, which delved into his security legal case with the Home Office. The Duke's lawyers claimed the article 'purported to reveal, in sensational terms, that information from court documents contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK.' In defence, Associated Newspapers argued that the article expressed an 'honest opinion' and did not cause 'serious harm' to his reputation, which must be proved for defamation. Harry withdrew the claim in January 2024, with a spokesperson stating that he did not want to 'give a continued platform to the Mail’s false claims.'
