High court ruling ‘magnificent vindication’ of the Daily Mail’s journalism, publisher claims
We are getting a statement through from the Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, which celebrates the judgment ruling in its favour and says it will seek to recover costs. The statement, attributed to a spokesperson, reads:
Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.
“Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.
“This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.
“For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.
“As we said at the time, these allegations were ‘lurid’ and ‘preposterous’, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.
“The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.
“As the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.
“Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs.
“We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.
Key events
Michael Savage
In a ruling that is likely to signal an end to new litigation relating to the phone-hacking scandal, the high court dismissed all the claims, stating the claimants had not proved information had been obtained unlawfully.
The written verdict from Mr Justice Nicklin said the court could not simply infer a story had been obtained unlawfully if there was a legitimate and realistic legal way in which they could have been sourced.
You can read more on the significance of the ruling from the Guardian’s media editor, Michael Savage, here:
In the summary, the judge said that a hearing will now take place on 29–30 July to hear arguments on “any points of dispute as to the consequential orders to be made” following today’s judgment.
High court ruling ‘magnificent vindication’ of the Daily Mail’s journalism, publisher claims
We are getting a statement through from the Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, which celebrates the judgment ruling in its favour and says it will seek to recover costs. The statement, attributed to a spokesperson, reads:
Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.
“Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.
“This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.
“For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.
“As we said at the time, these allegations were ‘lurid’ and ‘preposterous’, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.
“The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.
“As the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.
“Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs.
“We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.
In his 436-page written judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering (UIG).
As a reminder, the claimants were Prince Harry, Elton John and husband David Furnish, actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes. The judge wrote in his summary:
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…
The court also held that the parties were bound by the cases they had pleaded. It was not permissible, at trial, to replace a pleaded allegation with a different, and in many instances more serious, allegation of UIG… The claims are therefore dismissed.
Prince Harry and claimants lose case against Daily Mail publisher
Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants have lost their claim against Associated Newspapers Limited, the Daily Mail publisher. The written judgment is here. We are just combing through it to give you some of the key lines…
The high court judgment is expected shortly. There is no court hearing but a written judgment will be published online by Mr Justice Nicklin instead. Stay with us as we bring you the latest.
Prince Harry has arrived at Chatham House for the first in a series of week-long events celebrating his Invictus Games and ahead of an imminent court ruling.
Harry looked business-like as he stepped from his vehicle at around 1.15pm ahead of the highly-anticipated judgement in his High Court case against the Daily Mail’s publisher expected shortly on Tuesday afternoon.
Scores of photographers and media gathered outside and shouted “Sir, sir” at Harry, but the Duke of Sussex headed straight into the international affairs think tank’s building in central London.
PA media has helpfully looked at some of the 14 articles published by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) that Prince Harry alleges were based on unlawful information gathering. Here are two examples:
One article concerns Harry’s relationship with his first serious girlfriend, Laura Gerard-Leigh, and their “intentions and habits as a couple”.
He alleges it is “extraordinary” that the information in the May 2003 story, titled “Harry falls for a girl from Glossy Posse”, made its way into the press because of the “privacy he had attached to it and the ‘tiny’ circle of friends who knew”.
ANL said the story was partly based on photographs taken of the pair with friends at the Badminton Horse Trials – and has strongly denied the claims.
Another article concerns “intimate details” about Harry’s romantic relationship with Zimbabwean businesswoman Chelsy Davy – including “his personal feelings of paranoia about the romance leaking to the press”.
Barrister David Sherborne said the November 2004 story by Mail On Sunday journalists Caroline Graham and Barbara Jones, titled “Harry Besotted with Chelsy, his first true love”, is based on “information unlawfully obtained from British Airways”, and their explanations as to how they obtained the information is “nonsensical”.
ANL said Graham’s recollection was that she was told of Davy’s name by local freelancers at a ranch where the duke was staying in South Africa. ANL said the “evidence does not support” the allegations that Graham “unlawfully obtained Ms Davy’s flight plans”.
Throughout the High Court claim brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and others, lawyers for the Daily Mail’s publisher denied having obtained any information through unlawful means.
Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), said at the trial’s close that “ordinary, legitimate journalism” was the more likely explanation for how the journalists sourced their stories, instead of phone hacking or other unlawful means.
White told the court:
What is even less likely still… is that if the 40 journalists were all engaged in serious unlawful information gathering, they would have all made witness statements and queued up to come to court to be cross-examined.
He also said that the journalists provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing” of the more than 50 articles that are alleged to be the products of unlawful information gathering, including from the alleged “leaky” social circles of the celebrities’ friends.
Harry denied having “leaky” social circles, insisting that he was unable to complain about press coverage because of the way the royal system operated.
The Guardian’s media editor, Michael Savage, covered the high-profile trial at the high court in London in January. Here is an extract from his report, which you can read in full here:
Prince Harry has accused the publisher of the Daily Mail of wanting to drive him “to drugs and drinking” by placing his life under surveillance, as he told the high court that it continued to “come after” him and his wife.
The Duke of Sussex was on the verge of tears as he said Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) had continued to make Meghan’s life “an absolute misery” during his litigation against it.
In a brief speech at the end of his court appearance, the duke accused the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday of “delving into every single aspect of my private life, listening in to calls, blagging flights so they can find out where I’m going”.
He said he had never believed details of his life should be “open season to be commercialised by these people”, describing the legal action as a “recurring traumatic experience”.
Harry said:
Through the course of this litigation, it’s only got worse, not better. I think it’s fundamentally wrong to put all of us through this again when all we wanted was an apology and some accountability.
With his voice wavering, he added: “They continue to come after me. They have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my lord.”
It is not yet known when or whether Prince Harry will see his father, King Charles, during his trip as the King has engagements and audiences every day this week.
Harry had reportedly been hoping to reunite his children with their grandfather, 77, who is still undergoing treatment for cancer, for the first time in four years.
Harry met his father last September at Clarence House, the King’s London home, in their first face-to-face meeting since February 2024. It was seen as a first step in improving relations between them.
The duke, who stepped down from the working monarchy six years ago, has levelled a series of accusations at the King, his stepmother the Queen, brother the Prince of Wales and sister-in-law the Princess of Wales in his Oprah interview, Netflix documentary, interviews and his autobiography Spare since moving to California in 2020.
Harry broke ties with his family citing the “toxicity” of royal life and alleged racism towards his wife. He has expressed a wish to reconcile with his father but Harry’s relationship with his older brother is still reportedly strained.
Buckingham Palace says Harry can no longer stay at royal residence on UK visit
Kevin Rawlinson
The Duke of Sussex, who arrived in the UK on Monday, had been hoping to stay at his father’s official residence for one night this week while he visits London.
He is also going to Birmingham as he takes on a series of charity engagements including promoting the Invictus Games.
The buildup to the trip has been overshadowed by a dispute with the government over security, and a spokesperson for the duke saying on Sunday that the Duchess of Sussex and the couple’s children would not join him in the capital, but could do later when he visited the West Midlands.
PA Media said it was understood the duke and his family had initially been offered accommodation at the palace, but he had turned it down on Saturday.
It is understood that the view from the palace side is that he made a U-turn later that day, and asked if he could stay there alone for the single night. Harry’s team have said a protracted set of security arrangements needed to be handled – accounting for the delay in accepting.
By then, though, palace officials are said to have believed it was too late to sort out staffing. While the palace claimed every effort had been made to facilitate the duke’s stay, their position was that common courtesy required a minimum level of notice to be given to the staff who make a stay at a royal residence work. Such accommodation would nevertheless be made available to the duke and his family in future, it was said.
But if that all looked like a bit of an unedifying mess, what really upset Harry’s team was the suggestion the invitation had been withdrawn over fears the king would be put in an awkward position when a high court judge rules in a case involving his youngest son on Tuesday.
Ruling expected in Prince Harry’s court battle with Daily Mail publisher
Prince Harry will find out the result of a court case he and others brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, at about 2pm BST (9am EDT).
The long-running case centres on claims of unlawful information-gathering.
As my colleague notes in this story, these include allegations of voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception – also known as “blagging” – carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and ANL staff.
Prince Harry, also known as the Duke of Sussex, claims 14 articles published by ANL were based on unlawful information gathering.
Lawyers acting on his behalf said the stories were written between 2001 and 2013 – and “focus primarily and in a highly intrusive and damaging way, on the relationships which he formed, or rather tried to form, during those years prior to meeting his now wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex”.
ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claim, along with cases brought by others including Elton John, his husband David Furnish, English actor Sadie Frost and campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, whose 18-year-old son Stephen was killed in a racist attack in south London in 1993.
Prince Harry, who lives with his family in the US, arrived in London alone on Monday to begin a week of engagements that happen to coincide with the High Court ruling.
Harry’s wife Meghan, son, Archie, 7, and daughter, Lilibet, 5, did not travel with him because of security concerns. Stay with us as we bring you all the latest developments throughout the day.
About the Author
