Prince Harry loses High Court privacy case as judge dismisses all claims
After the ruling, Associated Newspapers Limited’s editor-in-chief Paul Dacre said: "There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family."
Prince Harry has lost his High Court privacy battle case against the Daily Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Listen to this article
It comes after an 11-week trial earlier this year which heard his claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday over alleged unlawful information gathering.
But a judgement released on Tuesday ruled the Duke of Sussex and six other defendants lost their case against the publisher.
All off the claims have been dismissed after the claimants failed to prove the allegations.
Releasing a 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove their pleaded allegations of unlawful information gathering.
Read more: Prince Harry back on UK soil amid fresh drama over Buckingham Palace stay
The judge said in a 436-page ruling: "For the reasons given in this judgment, each of the claimants’ claims is dismissed."
A group of household names, also including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir 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.
The duke, who flew from the US to give evidence in January grew tearful as he said the court battle had been a "horrible experience" for his family.
Addressing the evidence given by the Duke of Sussex at trial, he said: "In assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue.
"At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues, and exchanges followed with Mr White KC (Antony White KC, for Associated) in that vein.
"As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves.
"However, when giving evidence, that is not a burden they are required to carry. The responsibility for advancing the party’s case rests with the advocate.
"Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept. As with each of the claimants, Prince Harry has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute."
Discussing one of the articles about Harry being named as the godfather to the child of his former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke, Mr Justice Nicklin said: "The burden is on Prince Harry to prove that the information he relies upon in this article was obtained by unlawful means carried out or commissioned on Associated’s behalf.
"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 Duke of Sussex touched down in the UK yesterday evening to be present for the judgement which was released in written form.
He was one of dozens of people who gave evidence during the trial in London, which included Sir Simon Hughes, as well as many current or former ANL journalists and executives.
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".
He also said in his written evidence that "knowingly false" information was added to stories to "put me off the scent", to conceal unlawful methods, including voicemail interception.
As part of its defence, ANL said that Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists provide a "compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles", including friends and "leaky” social circles, press officers and spokespersons.
ANL argued throughout the trial that they had sourced stories legitimately and it argued the claims had been brought too late, a defence known as limitation.
Addressing this directly, the judge said that the claimants had relied on an exception to that rule, arguing that the facts relevant to their claims had been deliberately concealed by Associated.
After today's judgment, there will be a follow-up hearing later this month, Mr Justice Nicklin has said in his summary of his decision.
This will hear further "arguments on any points of dispute as to the consequential orders to be made following the judgment".
ANL's editor-in-chief Paul Dacre said: "Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity.
"There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family.“For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin.
"Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case.
"The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper.“We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet."
Commenting, Hacked Off Board Director and victim of phone hacking Jacqui Hames said: "The stories and conduct which formed the basis for the claims against the Mail were devastatingly intrusive, and included medical details, information about children, and other deeply invasive behaviour and coverage."