The Duke of Sussex and a group of other prominent figures, including Sir Elton John and Sadie Frost, have lost their High Court privacy case against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Judge Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the claimants had not provided sufficient evidence to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering.
Prince Harry, along with Sir Elton John, Sir Simon Hughes, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, claimed the newspaper group employed illicit methods to obtain information for its stories. Associated Newspapers had vehemently denied these accusations.
In his ruling summary, Mr Justice Nicklin stated that the claims were serious and, therefore, required more convincing proof than mere suspicion. He emphasized that the seven claimants needed to demonstrate that information was obtained unlawfully, rather than relying on what he termed "understandable suspicion."
The judge declined to make a determination on whether unlawful information gathering had been "widespread and habitual" within Associated Newspapers, opting instead to assess the merits of each individual claim. He accepted the denials from Associated Newspapers journalists who offered lawful explanations for how information for disputed articles and events was sourced.
Furthermore, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had not proven that three senior executives from Associated Newspapers—former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, and current senior lawyer Elizabeth Hartley—had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry when they stated there was no unlawful activity at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
Mr Justice Nicklin reviewed each alleged breach of privacy. In one instance concerning an article from 2013 about Prince Harry's New Year's Eve plans, it was claimed that a freelance journalist was instructed to "blag" travel details for his then-girlfriend Cressida Bonas. Prince Harry had described the situation as "creepy" and expressed bewilderment at how the newspaper obtained the information. The judge acknowledged that Prince Harry found the article intrusive and was concerned about how journalists accessed private information regarding his relationships, but reiterated that "suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof."