The Duke of Sussex's claims over alleged unlawful information gathering by Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers have been dismissed by a High Court judge. The case brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, and Elizabeth Hurley was heard at a three-month trial at London's High Court earlier this year. The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, accepted that every article complained about was lawfully sourced.
Judge's Findings on Specific Allegations
In his written judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin discussed each of the articles in the now-dismissed claims. Addressing one 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 added: '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 to obtain the relevant information. There is no documentary evidence for this article pointing to or suggesting voicemail interception.'
Publisher's Response
An Associated Newspapers Ltd spokesman welcomed the judgement, calling it 'an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.' The spokesman noted that Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all 97 allegations made by the claimants, accepting the honesty of journalists' evidence on how they sourced their stories. The spokesman said: '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 spokesman further stated that the allegations were 'lurid' and 'preposterous', describing the case as a 'fishing expedition' in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press. He noted that the reputations of the journalists were 'terribly impugned' and have now been exonerated. The spokesman thanked Mr Justice Nicklin for his 'patience and wisdom' and said the litigation wasted valuable court time and more than £50 million in legal costs. Associated Newspapers will look to recover costs incurred in defending against the 'egregious litigation.'
Impact and Next Steps
The dismissal marks a significant defeat for Prince Harry and the other claimants, who had alleged widespread unlawful information gathering by the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The case had attracted considerable public attention and raised questions about press ethics and privacy rights. With the judgement, Associated Newspapers has been cleared of all allegations, and the publisher is expected to pursue cost recovery from the claimants.
