The High Court has dismissed Prince Harry's phone-hacking case against Associated Newspapers Ltd, publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. Following the ruling, Associated Newspapers' editor-in-chief Paul Dacre described the outcome as an 'overwhelming vindication of our journalism' and a 'momentous victory.'
In a statement, Dacre asserted that the legal action, which involved 97 claims, should never have gone to trial, calling it a 'trumped-up action.' The case was heard over a three-month trial at London's High Court earlier this year. The trial judge, Mr. Justice Nicklin, found that all articles in question were lawfully sourced.
The lawsuit was brought by Prince Harry and six other claimants, including Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, and Baroness Lawrence. Dacre stated that the claims accused the Mail of unlawful information gathering, including placing bugs in homes, cars, and landline phones, allegations he previously characterized as 'lurid and preposterous.'
Dacre also suggested that the legal challenge was a 'conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper,' and that it was financed by Max Mosley and involved actor Hugh Grant. He implied the effort aimed to revive aspects of the Leveson Two inquiry and impose statutory regulation on the press.
He drew a contrast between Prince Harry's public disclosures about his own life and his pursuit of privacy claims, stating, 'For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin.' Dacre also noted the irony that Prince Harry's mother, Diana, had a reportedly positive relationship with the Daily Mail.
The editor-in-chief highlighted past instances of the Daily Mail's journalism, citing its role in naming individuals connected to the Stephen Lawrence murder case, which he said led to the Macpherson Inquiry and the eventual jailing of two killers. He also referenced the Mail on Sunday's publication of a photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre, which he stated ultimately led to justice for Epstein's underage victims. These examples, he argued, demonstrated the importance of a free press.
Dacre also commented on Baroness Lawrence's involvement, expressing bewilderment at her stance against the paper and the reporter who campaigned for her son's justice. He also addressed allegations made against the Mail concerning Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, noting they were rejected by the court, while also reiterating the paper's role in Mandelson's dismissals as a minister.
The case's cost was estimated by Dacre to be well over £50 million, which he stated was a waste of valuable court time and raised questions about the legal profession's conduct.