The Duke of Sussex's claims of unlawful information gathering by the Daily Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, have been dismissed by a High Court judge. The case, brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, and Elizabeth Hurley, underwent a three-month trial at London's High Court earlier this year. Mr Justice Nicklin accepted that every article in question was lawfully sourced.
Judge's Ruling on Specific Allegations
In his written judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin examined each article cited in the dismissed claims. Regarding an article about Prince Harry being named godfather to his former nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke's child, the judge stated: 'The burden is on Prince Harry to prove that the information he relies upon in this article was obtained by unlawful means carried out or commissioned on Associated's behalf. The allegation, advanced at trial, was that it was obtained by voicemail interception. I am not satisfied that this has been established.'
The judge further noted: 'More importantly, the evidence available for this article does not provide a sufficient foundation to conclude that voicemail interception, or any other unlawful act, occurred. There is no documentary evidence pointing to or suggesting voicemail interception.' He added that while Prince Harry's evidence indicated only a close circle would have known the details, this alone did not prove unlawful activity.
Publisher's Response
An Associated Newspapers Ltd spokesman said: 'Associated Newspapers welcomes today's judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally. 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.'
The spokesman added: 'For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched four years ago – placing bugs in cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made, and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented. These allegations were “lurid” and “preposterous”, and were a fishing expedition in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.'
Costs and Impact
The spokesman highlighted that the legal action wasted valuable court time and over £50 million in legal costs. He concluded: 'We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.' The ruling marks a significant legal victory for Associated Newspapers, with all 97 allegations dismissed.
