Harry loses High Court privacy case against Daily Mail publisher

Prince Harry and six other high-profile individuals have lost their High Court privacy case against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Judge Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had not provided sufficient proof of unlawful information gathering methods used by the newspaper group.

“

The claimants had failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering.

The publisher hailed the decision as an "overwhelming victory." Mr Justice Nicklin stated in his ruling summary that the serious allegations required more convincing evidence than mere suspicion, even if understandable. The seven claimants needed to demonstrate that information was obtained unlawfully, which the judge found they failed to do.

During the trial, the judge examined each claimed breach of privacy. While acknowledging suspicion about how journalists obtained information in some instances, he accepted the denials from Associated Newspapers' journalists, who provided lawful explanations for their sources. The claimants also failed to prove that senior executives lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry when they denied unlawful activity at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

“

The judgment was an 'overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.'

One article cited involved the Daily Mail's Royal Editor reporting on Prince Harry's New Year's Eve plans in 2013. The claimants alleged a freelance journalist was asked to "blag" travel details for Harry's then-girlfriend, Cressida Bonas. Prince Harry stated in his witness testimony that he found the article intrusive and was concerned about how the newspaper obtained private information about his relationships. However, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, "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."

“

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.