Prince Harry handed main blow as he loses £50m telephone hacking case

Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence are among a group of high-profile individuals whose phone hacking claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher have been dismissed by a High Court judge

View 3 Images

A High Court judge has dismissed claims made by the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence against the publisher of the Daily Mail over alleged unlawful information gathering.

The group of high-profile individuals, which also included David Furnish, Liz Hurley, and Sadie Frost, accused Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of engaging in activities such as voicemail interception, landline tapping, and obtaining information by deception, also known as “blagging”, through private investigators, freelance journalists, and staff.

ANL vehemently denied the allegations, arguing that the claims were brought too late and lacked evidence.

In a 436-page ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that none of the seven claimants had provided sufficient proof to support their allegations of unlawful information gathering.

The ruling stated: “For the reasons given in this judgment, each of the claimants’ claims is dismissed.”

In response to the judgment, ANL described the dismissal of the claims as an “overwhelming victory” and a “magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.

A statement from the publisher read: “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.”

ANL further stated: “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.”

In his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin highlighted that it was evident Harry “wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue” during his testimony in January.

The judge later stated that the burden of proof for the allegations of unlawful information gathering lay with the group of claimants.

Mr Justice Nicklin commented: “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.”

This verdict follows Harry’s return to the UK on Monday evening, ahead of a five-day schedule of appearances in London and Birmingham, including the one-year countdown to the 2027 Invictus Games.

During his visit, the duke will not be staying at Buckingham Palace, with his spokesperson stating on Monday that it was “disappointing” that the offer from the King had been “withdrawn at the last moment”, citing the impending judgment as the reason.

He is reported to have acted in good faith throughout the process, spending most of last week making alternative arrangements before formally accepting the offer for himself – for a single night.

Private discussions are believed to have occurred between the duke and his father.

It’s understood that Harry and his team are frustrated as the reasons given for the withdrawal of the offer shifted from not accepting the accommodation to the forthcoming judgment.

The trial in London saw dozens of people providing evidence, including Harry, other household names such as Sir Simon Hughes, and numerous current or former ANL journalists and executives.

During a two-hour cross-examination in January, Harry stated he couldn’t object to some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.

In his written testimony, he also claimed that “knowingly false” information was incorporated into stories to “put me off the scent”, hiding illegal methods like voicemail interception.

ANL defended itself by stating 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.

The court also debated whether the cases were filed in time, as the law stipulates that legal action related to unlawful information-gathering must be initiated within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.

Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that even if unlawful information gathering had been proven, the claims made by Sir Simon and Ms Frost were too late.