The High Court has dismissed all claims that The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday engaged in illegal information gathering, such as phone hacking, to obtain stories. The ruling, delivered after an 11-week trial with estimated costs of £50 million, found no evidence to support the allegations made by a group of claimants.
Claimants, including Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Baroness Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Simon Hughes, had accused the newspapers of using unlawful methods to gather information for their articles. The allegations, some dating back decades, were aimed at over 40 journalists.
Mr. Justice Nicklin, who presided over the trial, rejected every allegation, stating there was not a "shred of evidence" to back them up. The judge noted that the case was largely built on "supposition and innuendo." During the proceedings, the judge commended the truthfulness and candor of the Mail's witnesses, describing Royal Editor Rebecca English as "impressive and honest" and former associate editor Stephen Wright as a "truthful witness." However, Mr. Justice Nicklin was less complimentary about some claimants' witnesses, noting that former Hacked Off executive director Dr. Evan Harris made an "improper and dishonest proposal" in one instance and that his account could not be relied upon unless corroborated by documentary evidence.
The court's decision is seen by the Daily Mail as a significant victory for the publication and a landmark moment for press freedom in Britain. The newspaper group argued that the case, supported by the campaign group Hacked Off and funded by former activist Max Mosley, was an attempt to destroy The Mail and pave the way for state regulation of newspapers. The Mail asserts that such regulation would severely limit journalists' ability to expose wrongdoing and hold power to account, particularly in contrast to the unregulated internet, which it claims is rife with misinformation.
Associated Newspapers, the parent group of the Daily Mail, stated that dozens of its journalists had lived under suspicion for four years, and the company had expended considerable resources to prove its innocence. The publication maintains a long-standing reputation for accurate and courageous journalism, which it stated it guards jealously. The ruling affirms the newspapers' defense of every story challenged in court.
The Daily Mail commentary highlights that newspapers are already subject to strict laws on defamation, contempt, and data protection, as well as independent regulation by IPSO. It argues that imposing further regulatory burdens would be detrimental to the press's role in a democratic society. The publication stressed the need for constant vigilance in defending press freedom, which it characterized as a cornerstone of democracy that allows for criticism and opposition.