{"id":31001,"date":"2026-07-08T05:01:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T09:01:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/?p=31001"},"modified":"2026-07-08T05:01:26","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T09:01:26","slug":"prince-harry-and-others-lose-high-court-privacy-case-against-daily-mail-publisher","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/2026\/07\/08\/prince-harry-and-others-lose-high-court-privacy-case-against-daily-mail-publisher\/","title":{"rendered":"Prince Harry and others lose High Court privacy case against Daily Mail publisher"},"content":{"rendered":"
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.<\/b><\/p>\n
Judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering.<\/p>\n
Prince Harry brought the case against Associated Newspapers, along with a number of well-known figures.<\/p>\n
They claimed that the newspaper group used unlawful methods for getting information for stories, allegations which were strenuously denied by Associated Newspapers.<\/p>\n
In a joint statement following the ruling, Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, another claimant and peer whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993, said: “We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”<\/p>\n
“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected”, the pair added.<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the publisher described the judgement as an “overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists”.<\/p>\n
The prince did not respond to the BBC’s questions about the judgement as he left an Invictus Games event in London.<\/p>\n
In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before being proven.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
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.<\/p>\n
He said he accepted the denials of Associated Newspaper journalists “who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents”.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In his full\u00a0<\/b>436-page\u00a0<\/b>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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It was claimed a freelance journalist was asked to “blag” travel details for Ms Bonas.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n\n
<\/picture><\/span>Liz Hurley was also a claimant in the case against Associated Newspapers (Image: PA Media)<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 the life of his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, “an absolute misery”.<\/p>\n
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 Lawrence.<\/p>\n
During the trial:<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
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<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\n
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<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\n
Frost’s claims covered 11 articles including a draft story about Frost’s ectopic pregnancy<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\n
Baroness Lawrence alleged five articles relied on information “stolen” about her and the investigation into her son Stephen’s murder<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\n
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<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\n
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”<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
Associated Newspapers denied all the allegations.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n\n
<\/picture><\/span>Associated Newspapers executive Paul Dacre said today was a “momentous victory” (Image: PA Media)<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“In every case, the judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.<\/p>\n
“This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.”<\/p>\n
They added the court case has “wasted so much valuable court time and more than \u00a350m in legal costs”.<\/p>\n
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”.<\/p>\n
He added he would “never be able to comprehend” why Baroness Lawrence had decided to “turn on” the Daily Mail, which campaigned on the Lawrence family’s behalf. In 1997, the paper ran a famous front page naming the five prime suspects in Stephen’s murder.<\/p>\n
![\"Elizabeth](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/ace\/standard\/240\/cpsprodpb\/ef5e\/live\/58f44d60-7a1a-11f1-8233-417a25d303da.jpg.webp)
<\/picture><\/span>Liz Hurley was also a claimant in the case against Associated Newspapers (Image: PA Media)<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"Paul](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/ace\/standard\/3840\/cpsprodpb\/490a\/live\/e08a4d80-7a18-11f1-8228-eda6b31aeccd.jpg\")
<\/picture><\/span>Associated Newspapers executive Paul Dacre said today was a “momentous victory” (Image: PA Media)<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n![\"Paul](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/ace\/standard\/240\/cpsprodpb\/490a\/live\/e08a4d80-7a18-11f1-8228-eda6b31aeccd.jpg.webp)
<\/picture><\/span>Associated Newspapers executive Paul Dacre said today was a “momentous victory” (Image: PA Media)<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n