Prince Harry and others’ 97 claims against Daily Mail publisher dismissed by High Court

LAST UPDATE | 2 hrs ago

THE UK’S HIGH Court has dismissed all 97 allegations made by Prince Harry and others against the Daily Mail’s publisher.

Harry accused Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of unlawful information gathering, but a judge today said the prince didn’t have enough evidence to back up the claim.

A group of British household names, including Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Elton John and his husband David Furnish, alleged acts including voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception (also known as “blagging”) carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and ANL staff.

ANL strongly denied the claims as it defended the cases, which it also said had been brought too late.

During around two hours of cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.

In a statement this afternoon, ANL said the court’s ruling in their favour is an “overwhelming victory” for the Daily Mail, its journalists, “and for a free press generally”.

“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,” a spokesperson said.

“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 publisher says the allegations were a “fishing expedition” by the claimants in a “politically-motivated campaign to muzzle the free press”.

“As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced,” ANL said.

“The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.”

The publisher will now seek reimbursement for costs incurred during the legal battle.

Article about former nanny

Harry had alleged that information reported in an article, which stated that he was named as the godfather to the child of his former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke, was obtained by unlawful means.

Advertisement

Mr Justice Nicklin said in his judgment today that the burden is on the prince to prove this.

“The allegation, advanced at trial, was that it was obtained by voicemail interception.

“I am not satisfied that this has been established. The pleaded case does not particularise any unlawful act used to obtain the information in this article.”

The judge also said there was “no documentary evidence” for this article “pointing to or suggesting voicemail interception”.

No room at the inn

The result comes as Prince Harry is visiting the UK.

He is not staying at Buckingham Palace during his trip home this week. His spokesman said that it was “disappointing” the offer from King Charles had been “withdrawn at the last moment”.

The accommodation arrangements fell through just before his five days of appearances in London and Birmingham.

It is understood the prince initially turned down the offer for himself and his family, who are no longer accompanying him to London, on Saturday, before making a U-turn later in the day and asking to stay himself.

The appropriate hospitality and staffing provision was said to be no longer available, with Buckingham Palace also believing the longstanding legal case had complicated the matter, and could compromise the King’s constitutional position.

It is said that while every effort was made to facilitate Harry’s stay, as a courtesy to staff and others involved, the Royal Household requires a minimum level of notice to ensure he could be hosted appropriately at a royal residence.

Harry wanted to stay at the Palace for just one night, the Press Association understands.

Questions have been raised on his side as to whether the offer of a bed at a royal residence was ever intended to be available once he’d accepted it.

He is said 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 conversations are said to have taken place between the prince and his father, the king.