Prince Harry's fiery statement about the judge who presided over his privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail has been branded “over the top, personal and unacceptable” by two former justice secretaries. The Duke of Sussex lost his case against Associated Newspapers last week after Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all claims of unlawful information gathering in full.
Background of the Case
King Charles's son was part of a group of household names, also including Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost. They alleged that acts including voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception – known as “blagging” – were carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and staff at ANL. ANL denied the claims and argued the cases had been brought too late. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that none of the seven had proved the allegations of unlawful information gathering.
Joint Statement After Judgment
In a joint statement after the judgment, Harry and Baroness Lawrence said: “It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.” They added: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither. Generic findings about various private investigators that were held by the courts in these parallel claims to have carried out unlawful activity at the very same time in relation to similar stories and well-known individuals have been wholly ignored.” The statement continued: “The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the court room itself. It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted. When the court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, despite the documents showing otherwise, then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved.”
Criticism from Former Justice Secretaries
Harry's statement has been criticised by two former justice secretaries – Alex Chalk KC, who served under Rishi Sunak, and Sir Robert Buckland KC, who served under Boris Johnson. Mr Chalk said, as per The Telegraph: “Expressing disagreement with a judgment is perfectly reasonable. But Harry’s attack on a High Court judge was over the top, personal and unacceptable. Judges act in the name of the King and swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. That’s how our constitution works, as Harry should know better than most. However disappointed he was with the result, insulting one of HM’s judges is a line he shouldn’t have crossed.” Sir Robert said: “The tone and content of the attack was not appropriate.” He suggested the Duke could instead have issued a statement saying: “The Prince is deeply disappointed by the court’s decision and will be taking advice as to his options in light of this. He will make no further comment.”
