Prince Harry loses mega-trial against the 'Daily Mail' and sees accusations of illegal spying rejected
In a later hearing, the court will decide who will pay the costs of the trial, which are estimated to amount to 44 million euros
LondonPrince Harry suffered one of the most significant judicial defeats of his long battle against the British tabloid press this Tuesday. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has entirely dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and six other British public figures against the publisher of the tabloid newspaper Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers, concluding that they have not been able to prove that the newspaper obtained information through illegal practices. against the publisher of the tabloid newspaper Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers, concluding that they have not been able to prove that the newspaper obtained information through illegal practices.
Judge Matthew Nicklin has rejected the 97 cases brought by the various claimants, who also included musician Elton John, actress Elizabeth Hurley, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, actress Sadie Frost, her husband David Furnish, and former Liberal MP Simon Hughes. In the ruling, the magistrate states that the prosecution "has failed to prove its allegations" regarding alleged illegal information-gathering techniques, such as phone tapping, fraudulent access to medical records, or hiring private investigators. According to the judge, a large part of the accusations were based on inferences and suspicions, but "suspicion, while understandable, is not sufficient" to prove illicit conduct.
Harry claimed that fourteen stories published between 2001 and 2013 about his personal relationships and other aspects of his private life could only have been obtained illegally. The court, however, has rejected this argument and concluded that the fact that information is private does not necessarily imply that it was obtained illegally.
The ruling represents a particularly harsh setback for the Duke of Sussex, who since 2019 has made the fight against tabloids one of his main public causes. Despite having previously obtained compensation and apologies in cases against other British publishing groups, this time the court has fully endorsed the position of the obtained compensation and apologies in cases against other British publishing groups, this time the court has fully endorsed the position of the Daily Mail.
Associated Newspapers has celebrated the ruling as an "overwhelming victory" for press freedom and has stated that the judge has accepted its journalists' explanations about the origin of the published information. The company has also accused Harry of having wasted judicial resources with a lawsuit it considers unfounded.
A hearing is now pending, scheduled for July 29 and 30, at which it will be decided who will bear the costs of the proceedings. These could amount to tens of millions of pounds (equivalent to about 44 million euros), a bill that could fall, at least in part, on the prince and the other claimants if no appeal is ultimately successful. Meanwhile, the pressure group Hacked Off, which had supported the lawsuit, has admitted that it does not intend to appeal the decision because it considers that the courts are not the appropriate mechanism to globally investigate the alleged malpractice of the British press.