Prince Harry breaks silence as he loses privacy battle against the Daily Mail
Every single one of Prince Harry’s claims were dismissed by the High Court.
Prince Harry lost his High Court case (Image: Getty)
Prince Harry has broken his silence after losing his High Court privacy battle against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL). The Duke of Sussex claimed 14 different articles were based on information obtained through unlawful information-gathering methods.
In a joint statement with Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the Duke of Sussex said: “It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.” The pair said: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.
Get the latest news and gossip from the Royal Family plus selected offers and competitions Invalid email
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
“This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, who were represented by, at the time, the judge who made this decision.
“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.
They 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 courtroom 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.
“One need not look past when a private investigator the Mail used actually admitted on tape to having unlawfully blagged Baroness Lawrence, or when a journalist recorded the name of the private investigators she used to find out about highly sensitive medical information, that even the Mail was too worried to publish, or when another private investigator emailed one of the journalists with the actual British Airways seat number and ticketing details for a young girl simply visiting her boyfriend, in return for payment.”
Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence issued a joint statement (Image: Getty)
The Duke and Baroness Lawrence concluded: “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. We would like to thank our legal team for all their hard work and all the witnesses who were brave enough to come forward in the pursuit of justice.”
Baroness Lawrence issued a statement with the Duke (Image: Getty)
Alongside other claimants such as Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and Baroness Lawrence, Prince Harry alleged the paper had conducted unlawful information gathering, from landline tapping to obtaining information through deception, the claimants had suffered “violation”, “profound betrayal” and “shock and horror”, the court heard.
These include allegations of voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception – also known as “blagging”, carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and ANL staff.
ANL strongly denies the claims and defended the case, saying it “has established a complete defence to all parts of the claims on the merits” and that the cases have been brought too late.
In a statement following the verdict, an Associated Newspaper Ltd spokesperson 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.
Prince Harry’s case was heard in January (Image: Getty)
“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. (The claimants original press release, issued by Callum Galbraith of Hamlins LLP, is attached)
“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 judgement 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 £50m 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.”
Prince Harry gave evidence at the High Court (Image: Getty)
During the lengthy cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.
He also said in his written evidence that “knowingly false” information was added to stories to “put me off the scent”, to conceal unlawful methods, including voicemail interception.
As part of its defence, ANL said that Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles”, including friends and “leaky” social circles, press officers and spokespersons, as well as previous reporting, freelance journalists and stories from other newspapers and news agencies.
In response to the claims, Harry said in court: “My social circles were not leaky, I want to make that absolutely clear.” He added that if he became suspicious of someone, “I would have to cut contact with this person”.
The verdict was issued one day after his visit got off to a chaotic start when questions were asked whether the Duke would stay at Buckingham Palace during the London leg of his visit.
It was reported on Monday morning that Prince Harry had accepted an offer; however, this claim was quickly denied. It soon became clear that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s response to the invitation had arrived too late, and as a result, the Palace said arrangements could not be made.
Hitting back, a spokesperson for the Sussexes issued a fiery statement, claiming the offer of a Palace stay was “withdrawn”.
They said: “Following RAVEC’s decision not to provide security for his family, the Duke spent last week making alternative security arrangements. Once those arrangements were in place, he was able to formally accept the offer of accommodation for himself over the weekend.
“It is therefore disappointing that the offer has now been withdrawn, with Tuesday’s judgment in the Associated Newspapers Limited case cited as the reason.”
