The Duke of Sussex and six other claimants have lost their High Court privacy action against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. In a lengthy ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin found the group had not proved that journalists at the publisher used unlawful methods to obtain the information on which their allegations were based.
The claimants included Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Simon Hughes, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence. They accused Associated Newspapers of acquiring material by unlawful means for a number of stories; Associated has consistently denied those allegations.
In a 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin declined to make a broad finding that unlawful information-gathering was “widespread and habitual” at the publisher, deciding instead to consider the merits of each of the individual complaints. He concluded that suspicion, even if understandable, was not enough: the claimants needed evidence that information had been obtained unlawfully and, on the facts before him, had failed to meet that legal standard.
The judge also rejected claims that three senior figures at Associated—former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, and the publisher’s senior lawyer Elizabeth Hartley—had lied to the Leveson Inquiry when they denied unlawful activity. The court accepted the explanations given by journalists about how disputed stories had been sourced.
Dozens of witnesses gave evidence over the trial, including the claimants and many current and former Associated Newspapers journalists and executives. The judgment examined each alleged breach in detail and frequently recorded that there was suspicion about how information had been obtained, while stressing that suspicion did not amount to proof.
Examples considered in the trial included a 2013 Royalist story about Prince Harry and Cressida Bonas, in which it was alleged a freelance reporter had been asked to “blag” travel details; reporting on a paternity dispute involving Elizabeth Hurley; a draft story about Sadie Frost’s ectopic pregnancy; allegations that Baroness Lawrence’s stories relied on material “stolen” about the investigation into her son Stephen’s murder; and publication of details about the birth of Sir Elton John’s surrogate child, including the birth certificate.
Associated Newspapers said the judgment was an “overwhelming victory” and that the judge had accepted the honesty of its journalists in every one of the 97 allegations considered. The publisher criticised the case as a waste of court time and said legal costs exceeded £50m. Paul Dacre described the outcome as a “momentous victory,” calling the action “trumped-up.”
Sir Simon Hughes said he was disappointed by the result and would take time to consider the judgment. A further two-day hearing is scheduled to begin on 29 July.
The ruling is the latest legal encounter between Prince Harry and sections of the UK press. In 2023 he succeeded in 15 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers, and last year the publisher of The Sun settled a long-running dispute with the duke, apologising and paying substantial damages. Tuesday’s verdict comes as Prince Harry begins a week of engagements in the UK, starting with an Invictus Games-related event in London.
