The claimants all lost their case earlier this month.
Prince Harry pictured previous outside court (Image: Getty)
Prince Harry’s claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail will return to court today just weeks after the court ruling. The Duke of Sussex, alongside several other high-profile figures, claimed that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) had taken part in unlawful information-gathering to produce articles.
ANL strongly denied the claims, which were heard at an 11-week trial in London earlier this year. On July 7, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the claims in their entirety in a 436-page judgment, believing there was not enough sufficient evidence from the claimants.
The claims are now set to return to court for a two-day hearing dealing with the matters arising from the judgment, which is due to begin at 10.30am. The hearing is expected to concern issues including legal costs, with ANL stating it has already run up costs of more than £50 million, and whether any of the group will seek to appeal against the ruling.
The trial was focused on 97 articles that the group claimed were sourced through unlawful means.
Dozens of people gave evidence during the trial, including all of the high-profile figures and many current or former ANL journalists and executives.
Barristers for the group alleged that private investigators, freelance journalists and staff at ANL carried out acts including voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception – also known as “blagging”.
But lawyers for the publisher said that Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists provided 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 his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said: “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.”
Paul Dacre, the ANL editor-in-chief and former editor of the Daily Mail, said the “trumped-up action” “should never have been brought to trial”.
Harry and Lady Lawrence said following the judgment that the decision was a “complete and obvious whitewash”, adding: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”
