Prince Harry loses High Court privacy case against Daily Mail publisher

The Duke of Sussex and six others have lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

Judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Prince Harry brought the case against Associated Newspapers, along with a number of well-known figures.

They claimed that the newspaper group used unlawful methods for getting information for stories, allegations which were strenuously denied by Associated Newspapers.

A spokesperson for the publisher described the judgment as an "overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists".

In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before being proven.

He said the seven claimants could not rely on "suspicion, even where understandable". Instead, he said they had to prove information had been obtained unlawfully.

Mr Justice Nicklin refused to make a finding as to whether what became known as unlawful information gathering had become "widespread and habitual" at Associated Newspapers and instead decided the merits of each individual claim.

He said he accepted the denials of Associated Newspaper journalists "who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents".

He ruled that the claimants had also failed to prove three senior Associated executives - former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, and current senior lawyer for the publisher Elizabeth Hartley - had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry where they said there was no unlawful activity at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

In his full 436-page judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin examined each claimed breach of privacy, and often noted that there was suspicion about how information was obtained by the journalists.

In one article, the Daily Mail's Royal Editor wrote in 2013 that Prince Harry faced a lonely New Year's Eve without his girlfriend Cressida Bonas.

It was claimed a freelance journalist was asked to "blag" travel details for Ms Bonas.

Prince Harry said in a witness statement this was "creepy" and he did not know how the newspaper could have obtained the information about the couple's separate whereabouts.

Mr Justice Nicklin said: "I accept that he found the article intrusive and was genuinely concerned by how journalists appeared to know private information concerning his relationships. But suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof."

Dozens of people gave evidence during the trial, including Prince Harry and the other claimants, as well as many current and former Associated Newspapers journalists and executives who gave evidence denying illegal activity.

During the trial at the beginning of the year, Prince Harry became emotional when talking about the impact of the articles on himself and those close to him, and said Associated Newspapers had made life of his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, "an absolute misery".

Other claimants in the case included actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, singer Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Simon Hughes, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the Labour peer and mother of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in 1993.

Hurley was reduced to tears after describing the effect of the reporting of the paternity row about her son with the American businessman Steve Bing

Prince Harry flew in to give evidence in person - his anger was plain to see as he argued there were 14 articles written using unlawfully gathered information about his private life

Baroness Lawrence alleged five articles relied on information "stolen" about her and the investigation into her son Stephen's murder

On Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, barrister David Sherborne said details were published about the birth of their surrogate son - including his birth certificate before the couple had received their own copy

For Sir Simon, the barrister said the Mail was "prepared to exploit his sexuality", also citing a moment in 2006 when Hughes was "outed on the front page of the Sun"

Associated Newspapers denied all the allegations.

In a statement after the judgment was delivered, Sir Simon described it as "very disappointing" and said he would now "take time to consider" the judge's findings.

Associated Newspapers executive Paul Dacre said today was a "momentous victory"

An Associated Newspaper spokesperson said: "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."

They added the court case has "wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs".

Paul Dacre, Associated Newspapers' editor-in-chief and ex-Daily Mail editor, said the action had been "trumped-up" adding it "should never have been brought to trial".

A further hearing lasting two days is now expected to take place from 29 July.

This is the latest - and is expected to be the last - in a series of courtroom battles fought by Prince Harry against what he has seen as the dishonest practices of the UK press.

In 2023, Prince Harry won 15 claims in his case accusing Mirror Group Newspapers of unlawfully gathering information for stories published about him.

Last year, the publisher of the Sun newspaper agreed to pay "substantial damages" and apologised to the duke to settle a long-running legal battle over claims of unlawful intrusion into his life.

Tuesday's verdict coincides with the start of a week of engagements in the UK for Prince Harry, starting with an event in London for the Invictus Games, his charity for injured military veterans.