PRINCE Harry has suffered a crushing defeat in his £50million hacking case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
In a huge victory for Press freedom, every single one of the 97 allegations made by the Duke and his pals was rejected.
Sign up for The Jattvibe newsletter
Thank you!
Prince Harry has suffered a crushing defeat in his hacking case Credit: Louis Wood News Group Newspapers Ltd
Harry arrives at Chatham house in London Credit: Louis Wood News Group Newspapers Ltd
Harry, 41, hit out at the “complete and obvious whitewash” in an extraordinary rant against the judge.
The Duke of Sussex was one of seven high-profile claimants seeking damages from Associated Newspapers Ltd over claims of unlawful information gathering.
The group included Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost and campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
They had accused journalists of hiring private investigators to hack voicemails, blag private medical records, and listen in on phone calls.
Read more on Prince Harry
HARRY BLOW
Harry LOSES court battle with Daily Mail publisher – hours after returning to UK
ROYAL SUMMONS
King holds rare ‘family dinner’ amid drama over Harry’s imminent UK visit
But High Court trial judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants failed to prove any of the allegations.
He accepted that every one of the 55 articles complained about was lawfully sourced.
Last night Associated Newspapers hailed the judgment as “an overwhelming victory” and “a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.
Editor-in-Chief Paul Dacre said the “trumped-up” case was a “sinister bid” to impose statutory regulations on the Press.
High-profile claimants seeking damages included Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish Credit: PA
Actress Liz Hurley, pictured arriving at court, claimed her landline was bugged Credit: Simon Jones
He added: “Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists — several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free Press generally.
“Make no mistake.
“This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper.”
Mr Dacre also hit out at Harry, referring to his book Spare.
He 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.”
Media lawyer Louis Charalambous said the judgment likely marks the end of historic hacking claims.
He added: “This is definitely a victory for good journalism.
“None of the claims were substantiated and there was a catastrophic collapse — every claim failed.
“They just could not prove any of the allegations they made.
Actress Sadie Frost said her voicemails were intercepted Credit: Reuters
Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mum of murdered Stephen, joined the claim in 2022 Credit: Getty
“The lesson for them is you shouldn’t start cases based purely on suspicion.”
Harry had persuaded Baroness Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, to join the claim in 2022.
The Daily Mail had campaigned for her son’s killers to be put behind bars.
Mr Dacre said he will “never be able to comprehend” why she turned against the newspaper.
Harry and Baroness Lawrence branded the case’s outcome a “whitewash”.
They said: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability.
“But we have received neither.
“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.
“However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”
They claimed it is “one rule for the newspapers and another for the claimants”, adding: “While the claimants presented evidence, Mail journalists simply gave denials, and the court chose uncritically to believe them, even in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and blatant untruths that were obvious to neutral observers in court when compared to the documents.
“We presented evidence which we believed was compelling at the time and remains so now.”
Ex-Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes said private investigators targeted him Credit: Reuters
Prince Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne Credit: Alamy
Harry touched down in the UK on Monday evening for a five-day trip.
Yesterday he was at a London event for his Invictus Games when told of his court defeat.
The Prince looked glum as he repeatedly checked his phone and appeared to ignore other speakers’ jokes at think-tank Chatham House based in St James’s Square.
Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne arrived there in a taxi at 3.32pm.
At one point Invictus staff said they expected the Prince to leave early, but he remained for the full two hours, listening to veterans speak and hugging well-wishers goodbye.
Immediately after the event, he ducked into a private room to speak to his lawyer.
When he finally left alone at 5.13pm, he laughed and gave a thumbs up to onlookers.
Earlier this year he fought back tears as he told the court how Mail journalists “made my wife’s life an absolute misery”.
He was the first claimant to take to the witness box in the ten-week privacy trial in February.
The Prince told how his private life had been treated as “open season” and “commercialised”.
He claimed information in 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013 was obtained unlawfully.
The noise annoys
By Matt Wilkinson
HARRY always brings attention and noise but the wearisome drama since he’s been back in the UK has been worse than usual this time.
Inside a few short hours, he is said to have made the King’s patience “snap” due to the “constant chaos” over the Buckingham Palace accommodation farce.
Then Harry was blasted as “confused and angry” after losing the court case against the Daily Mail.
This trip — supposed to be about celebrating wounded soldiers competing in his Invictus Games — has only just started and already enough has happened to fill another Netflix series.
Elsewhere this week, the King has been celebrating the Royal Tank Regiment, the Princess of Wales has brought joy to ill youngsters and Prince William joined athletes preparing to represent Wales in the Commonwealth Games.
This vital work should not be lost amid the noise of a California-based royal who turned his back on the country six years ago.
Harry was at a London event for his Invictus Games when told of his court defeat Credit: Reuters
Anthony White, for the publisher, blamed Harry’s “leaky” friendship group for the stories.
In his 23-page witness statement Harry admitted he had “always suspected” his friends and bodyguards of sharing his private information.
But giving evidence, he insisted if he became suspicious of a pal he would “cut contact”.
Asked why he had not complained about stories at the time they were published, he blamed Buckingham Palace, saying: “It was a never complain, never explain policy.”
In his 436-page ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said it was clear Harry “wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue”.
He accepted the Prince’s evidence but said at times he went “beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues”.
The judge concluded Harry had “limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.”
The privacy case was backed by Hacked Off, which has actor Hugh Grant as a board member and ex-Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris as its joint executive director.
In his judgment Mr Justice Nicklin also criticised Dr Harris for devising an “improper and dishonest” plot to hide the fact that ex-politician Sir Simon Hughes’s privacy claim fell outside the six-year time limit.
A two-day hearing to discuss any subsequent orders will be held at the High Court later this month.
Associated Newspapers Ltd will seek to recover costs.
Harry is due to attend an Invictus Games event at Royal Hospital Chelsea in West London today, with journalists told they will not be allowed inside.
Ruling a savage dismissal for Mail 7
By Emily-Jane Heap
PRINCE HARRY claimed 14 articles from 2001 to 2013 were obtained unlawfully.
“Highly intrusive” stories about his exes Chelsy Davy and Natalie Pinkham and chats with brother William could only have come via deception or from voicemail hacking, his lawyers said.
But the judge ruled no allegations were proven. Most of the information was already “publicly reported”, from Palace press officers or Harry’s “social circle”.
SIR ELTON JOHN and hubby DAVID FURNISH said their landline was hacked for stories, including on the singer’s health.
The judge said there were lawful explanations for the articles from 2000 to 2015, and some info may have come from their PR rep.
SIR SIMON HUGHES claimed voicemails to a partner were intercepted by private investigators working for the Mail on Jattvibeday in 2006. However, the judge ruled he could not prove the reporter involved “knew the information in question was the product of voicemail interception” which was “fatal” to his case.
LIZ HURLEY said private investigators bugged her landline and put microphones on her windows in a claim relating to 15 Mail articles from 2002 to 2011.
But the judge found no evidence, ruling information may have come from other Press reporting or journalists’ “confidential sources”.
SADIE FROST claimed private investigators hacked voicemails to ex Jude Law and obtained information about her ectopic pregnancy.
But the judge ruled there was no “direct evidence” of voicemail interception.
He said the medical information was “deeply intrusive” but there was no proof anyone at the Mail publisher was “guilty of unlawful information gathering in relation to this incident”.
BARONESS DOREEN LAWRENCE — mum of murdered teen Stephen — said she felt like “a victim all over again” after being told that her phone was hacked. She claimed five articles from 1997 to 2007 used information gathered illegally.
But the judge said they came from “lawful sourcing”, including confidential police contacts who were not paid.
