Statements have begun to emerge from high-profile celebrities following the High Court's ruling in favour of Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) in the privacy case. Prince Harry and six other claimants lost their case today against the publisher of the Daily Mail and its sister paper, the Mail on Sunday, over claims of unlawful information gathering.
Sir Simon Hughes Expresses Disappointment
Reacting to the judgement, former deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Simon Hughes, described the ruling as “disappointing”. He said in a statement: "The judgment in the case against ANL is naturally very disappointing for me, and I am sure for all other claimants. I shall take time to consider the lengthy judgment in detail and plan to make no further comment in the near future."
Tuesday's ruling followed an 11-week High Court trial, which concluded in March, in which the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and other high-profile claimants accused Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of carrying out "grave breaches of privacy" over a 20-year period. The claimants alleged that dozens of articles published in the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, between the 1990s and 2011 were based on information obtained through unlawful methods, including phone hacking and blagging.
ANL Denies All Allegations
ANL, publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, strongly denied the allegations and rejected all claims of wrongdoing. In a decision on Tuesday, judge Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all of the claims, ruling that none of the group of seven had proven the allegations of unlawful information gathering. The judge said the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before they could be proven. He added the seven claimants could not rely on "suspicion, even where understandable", and had to prove that the information had been obtained unlawfully.
The Duke of Sussex has yet to make a public statement on the outcome of the case. His lawyer, David Sherborne, was seen entering Chatham House in central London on Tuesday afternoon to meet the Duke after the ruling.
Paul Dacre Criticizes Legal Action
Following the judgment, ANL’s editor in chief Paul Dacre said the “trumped-up action”, which has cost over £50 million, “should never have been brought to trial”. “That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession,” he added.
In a statement following the High Court’s ruling, Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers said: “Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgment, 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. This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.
“For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented. As we said at the time, these allegations were ‘lurid’ and ‘preposterous’, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.
“The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated. As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced. Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50 million in legal costs. We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.”
