The Duke of Sussex and six other claimants have lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The ruling marks a significant setback for Prince Harry in his long-standing legal battles with sections of the British press.
In his judgment, the judge made it more difficult for claimants to succeed by requiring them to prove conclusively that every newspaper story was obtained unlawfully, rather than relying on "generic evidence" about journalists' tendencies to break rules. The court also considered the methods used to gather evidence, finding some questionable. Crucial documents and witnesses were reportedly obtained by Graham Johnson, a former phone-hacking journalist now campaigning for press standards. Johnson told the BBC that he paid private investigators for information to write online news stories about the scandal, with the use of the information for evidence coming later. The judge found this explanation "unconvincing," deciding Johnson knew his work served both journalism and the purpose of winning a court case.
Further complicating the evidence, one of the paid individuals, private investigator Gavin Burrows, submitted two conflicting statements. One statement alleged widespread unlawful activities for the Mail newspapers, while another denied any such actions. The judge deemed these statements self-canceling and unreliable.
Associated Newspapers had previously insisted at the 2011 Leveson Inquiry into press standards that no wrongdoing occurred at its newspapers. Opponents argued that this "all-or-nothing" defense left the publisher vulnerable to the discovery of any evidence of unlawful activities. It appears this strategy did not yield the desired outcome in this instance.
It remains to be seen whether other legal actions by potential claimants will proceed following this ruling. However, the 20-year history of such claims may be nearing an end. Other law firms were closely observing this case to inform their own strategies for pursuing legal action against Associated Newspapers. The BBC reported that potential claimants included individuals who had previously won cases against other newspapers, as well as a public figure connected to the royal family. This specific case was distinguished from previous ones in several ways, including the judge's stricter evidentiary requirements for the claimants.