Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence have described the High Court’s dismissal of their unlawful information gathering claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher as a “complete and obvious whitewash”. The Duke of Sussex and Lady Lawrence issued a joint statement after Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that none of the seven claimants had proven allegations of voicemail interception, landline tapping, and blagging by private investigators and journalists at Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Court ruling and reaction
In a 436-page ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that while the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities, “the more serious, and inherently less probable, the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to prove it.” He noted that the claimants often relied on inferences but added that “suspicion is not enough.” The judge also stated: “In substance, the claimants’ case invites the court to conclude that, because the information was private and because Associated cannot positively explain how it was sourced, the article must have been unlawfully sourced. That is not a permissible approach.”
ANL strongly denied the claims and argued they were brought too late. The group of household names also included Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes. The trial heard evidence from dozens of people, including Harry, who gave around two hours of cross-examination in January. Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles at the time “because of the institution I was in.”
Joint statement from Harry and Lady Lawrence
In their joint statement, Harry and Lady Lawrence said the ruling was a “complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims” against News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers. 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 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.”
They continued: “It feels here like one rule for the newspapers and another for the claimants. While the claimants presented evidence, Mail journalists simply gave denials and the court chose uncritically to believe them, even in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and blatant untruths that were obvious to neutral observers in court when compared to the documents. We presented to the court evidence which we believed was compelling at the time and remains so now.”
ANL and Paul Dacre respond
After the judgment, ANL’s editor in chief Paul Dacre described the ruling as “a momentous victory for the Mail” and “an overwhelming vindication of our journalism.” He noted that Stephen Lawrence’s father Neville “says he owes the Mail everything,” and questioned why Baroness Lawrence “chose to turn on both the paper, and the brilliant reporter who campaigned for justice for her son for over two decades.” Dacre also said: “The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession.” Discussing Harry, Dacre said there was not “a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family,” and that he feels “sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case.”
A further hearing is expected to take place over two days from July 29. Harry returned to the UK on Monday ahead of appearances in London and Birmingham, including marking the one-year countdown to the 2027 Invictus Games. His spokesman said it was “disappointing” that an offer from the King to stay at Buckingham Palace had been “withdrawn at the last moment,” with the looming judgment given as the reason.
