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
The group, which includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Lawrence and Liz Hurley, had sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering.
One of the articles relied on by Prince Harry in his claim was a 2002 Mail on Sunday piece titled, “Harry’s older woman”, by journalist Katie Nicholl.
The article reported that he had “set his sights” on TV presenter Natalie Pinkham.
Prince Harry alleged information in the article was gathered unlawfully, claiming Nicholl had got hold of Pinkham’s phone number and hired a blagger to obtain billing data to show contact between the two.
Nicholl said a flirtatious relationship between the two was well known, that Pinkham would sometimes speak to her off the record, and that she had several sources who knew both Pinkham and Prince Harry well.
She said one of these included a source in Harry’s circle who was sometimes present when he was on the phone, and who had been shown some of his text messages on at least one occasion.
“I accept that evidence as to the sourcing of the article,” the judgment says.
They claimed the newspaper group used unlawful methods when gathering information for stories, such as hacking or blagging – allegations the publisher strenuously denied.
In his ruling, Mr. Justice Niclin said the allegations were serious and required more convincing evidence before being proven – but the claimants had failed to prove them.
The court has rejected their attempt to prove the claims through “broad inference” in cases where there was a “legitimate and realistic” possibility lawful sources were used.
In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin concludes the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before being proven.
He says the seven claimants could not rely on “suspicion, even where understandable”. They had to prove information had been obtained unlawfully.
He refuses to make a finding as to whether what became known as unlawful information gathering had become “widespread and habitual” and instead decided the merits of each individual claim.
He says he accepted the denials of Associated Newspaper journalists “who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.”
He rules that the claimants had also failed to prove three senior Associated executives – former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, as well as the current senior lawyer at the company Elizabeth Hartley – had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry where they said there was no unlawful activity at the Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The full judgment runs to over 400 pages, and a summary of the document says: “The Court rejected the attempt to prove the claims by broad inference where there remained a legitimate and realistic possible lawful source pathway, or where the article-specific evidence did not prove that the relevant information must have been obtained unlawfully.”
Their claims have been dismissed.
A weeks-long trial at the beginning of the year saw Prince Harry give emotional evidence over the articles he complained about – he said ANL had made his wife’s life an “absolute misery”
Responding to the ruling, ANL said it was a “magnificient vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has welcomed the High Court’s ruling as an “overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists” in a lengthy statement.
“This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism,” a spokesperson says.
“The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated,” they go on to say.
“As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.”
They add: “We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.”
BBC
Umoru Faruk Salifu
+2348080388023
umorufaruks007@gmail.com,
umoru@21stcenturychronicle.com
Twitter: @65Umoru
