Prince Harry loses High Court privacy claim against the media in major defeat
Updated ,first published
London: Prince Harry lost a major lawsuit over his personal privacy against a British publisher, prompting him to slam the judge for “whitewashing” that he claimed ignored evidence of illegal tricks such as phone hacking.
The High Court ruled that the Duke of Sussex and celebrities such as Elton John and Liz Hurley had failed to prove their claims and rejected the claims on all counts.
Harry and other plaintiffs had accused Daily MailOne of the country’s most powerful newspapers uses illegal methods such as phone hacking to get its news.
They also alleged that he used “swearing,” a practice in which a journalist makes false claims to trick people into revealing information.
The court ruling came on the first day of Harry’s visit to the UK on a personal trip; This has increased tensions between him and his father, King Charles, and his brother, Prince William, including a dispute over whether the Duke of Sussex can stay at Buckingham Palace.
Clearly angered by the court decision, Harry issued a statement with fellow plaintiff Baroness Doreen Lawrence.
“This is a complete and obvious exoneration, but unfortunately not entirely unexpected. But we see how far the court has gone to exonerate the defendants.” Mail “It is as shocking as it is completely inappropriate,” they said.
“When the court says there is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, even though the documents show the contrary, one wonders how justice will be served.
“It feels as if there are one rule here for newspapers and another for plaintiffs. While plaintiffs present evidence, Mail “The journalists simply issued denials and the court uncritically chose to believe them, despite the inconsistencies, contradictions and blatant lies that were obvious to impartial observers in the court when compared to the documents.”
The prince was joined at the trial by Hurley, actress Sadie Frost, politician Simon Hughes and Baroness Lawrence, a member of the House of Lords whose son was killed in a racist attack. John attended the trial with her husband David Furnish. They all alleged that the owner of media outlet Associated Newspapers used illegal means to obtain information about them.
However, the court rejected the allegations and said that they did not prove that “unlawful information collection” (UIG) was carried out against them.
“The court emphasized that it was the plaintiffs’ duty to prove UIG. These were civil claims, so the legal test was whether the claims were proven on the balance of probabilities,” Superior Court Judge Matthew Nicklin wrote in his brief.
“But the allegations were serious: they included allegations of fraud, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation, the more convincing the evidence must be before the court finds it proven.”
The judge found that the claims of the prince and others were based on “inference” rather than concrete evidence.
“But the doubt, even if understandable, was not enough,” he wrote.
“Plaintiffs had to prove that the information complained of was obtained unlawfully. The court rejected the argument that the relevant article must have been unlawfully sourced because the information was private and Associated could not affirmatively explain how it was obtained.”
Associated Newspapers has strongly denied any wrongdoing over the reporting, which appeared between 1993 and 2018, and has taken journalists to court to deny “libel” or phone hacking.
“Plaintiffs have failed to prove their allegations regarding UIG,” the judge said.
“The court rejected any attempt to prove allegations by broad inference where a legitimate and realistic possible legal source remains or where article-specific evidence does not establish that the relevant information must have been unlawfully obtained.”
The decision has implications for Viscount Rothermere’s hereditary peer, Jonathan Vere Harmsworth, who was founded by his great-grandfather. Daily Mail In 1896.
One of the allegations against the newspaper was that journalists illegally obtained details of a “private and intimate” conversation between Harry and his brother Prince William about photographs of the death of their mother, Princess Diana, in a car crash in 1997.
Another was that journalists illegally obtained details of a private discussion between Harry and William regarding a memorial service for their mother, involving John’s help. The musician sang a version of: Candle in the Wind At Princess Diana’s funeral in 1997.
Harry also claimed that the newspaper collected information about his relationships with his girlfriends before he met Meghan Markle, whom he married in 2018.
David Sherborne, the lawyer representing all the plaintiffs, cited text messages, invoices, payment details and other records to argue the company knew the information was obtained in violation of the law.
The case has revived questions about journalism that were raised more than a decade ago during the phone hacking investigation of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. News Corp was not a party to the present litigation. Harry made a claim against News Corp and its London tabloid newspaper. SunEarly last year for an estimated £10 million ($19 million).
Take notes directly from our foreign country reporters about things that make headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What’s on in the World Newsletter.
David Crowe is the European correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect with: X or email.
