Prince Harry brands Daily Mail ruling a 'whitewash'

Prince Harry and six co-claimants lost their High Court case against the Daily Mail publisher after Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all unlawful information-gathering claims. Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence called the verdict a “complete and obvious whitewash,” while Associated Newspapers hailed an “overwhelming victory” and may seek up to £50m in costs.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court dismissed every claim that Associated Newspapers unlawfully sourced stories about Harry and six other claimants.
• Harry and Doreen Lawrence branded the Daily Mail ruling a “complete and obvious whitewash.”
• The publisher called the outcome an “overwhelming victory” and may pursue a legal bill of up to £50m.
• Mr Justice Nicklin’s 436-page judgment said the court could not infer illegality where legitimate sourcing remained realistic.

Why did Prince Harry lose the Daily Mail case?

After an 11-week trial, the High Court threw out the group’s case against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. The claimants alleged “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information-gathering,” citing phone hacking, landline tapping, bugging and alleged corrupt payments to police.

They put 55 articles from 1997 to 2015, plus three other incidents, before the court. Nicklin ruled they had not proved any information was obtained unlawfully. The court would not infer illegality if a legitimate, realistic sourcing route still existed. ANL argued stories came from press officers, prior articles or “leaky” celebrity circles.

A key witness, private investigator Gavin Burrows, said before trial that his witness statement was a forgery and that he had not carried out illegal work for Mail titles. The judge found Burrows “comprehensively undermined,” with no independent corroboration.

Who else sued the Daily Mail publisher?

Alongside the Duke of Sussex were Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Elton John and David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, and former Liberal Democrat minister Simon Hughes. Harry told the court Mail titles had made his wife’s life “an absolute misery.”

In a joint statement, Harry and Lawrence said that when the court finds insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, “one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved.” Former editor Paul Dacre, described elsewhere as the real victor of the case, called it a “conspiracy” by press-regulation campaigners to “destroy a paper,” while expressing sympathy for Harry.

What happens after the Daily Mail verdict?

ANL said the ruling was a “magnificent vindication” of its journalism and that every disputed article was legitimately sourced. It will seek to recover costs from the mammoth case. Harry previously won damages against the Daily Mirror and settled with News Group Newspapers over Sun intrusion; the Mail made no admissions and defended every claim.

For more legal-risk and market-moving coverage, see BlasterPost’s Fintech & Crypto Alerts. Full reporting on the judgment is available from The Guardian.