DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Magnificent victory for the Mail… and Britain’s free Press

In a stunning and sweeping victory, the Supreme Court rejected appalling allegations that the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday used illegal means to gather information.

This was a victory for our journalism. But it was much more than that. This was a turning point for Britain’s free press. The lawsuit, backed by campaign group Hacked Off and funded by former far-right activist Max Mosley, was nothing more than a bid to destroy the Mail.

Had it succeeded, the consequences for freedom of expression would have been profound. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the aim of Hacked Off is to pave the way for state regulation of newspapers.

The plaintiffs – Prince Harry, Elton John and husband David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Baroness Lawrence and former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Simon Hughes – claimed that the Mail’s coverage of them was obtained by phone hacking or other illegal means.

More than 40 journalists of the highest integrity have been forced to defend themselves against allegations of illegal and/or criminal conduct, some dating back decades.

Following an 11-week trial and with the total cost estimated at a staggering £50 million, Mr Justice Nicklin found that there was not a shred of evidence to support these allegations. He denied every allegation.

But even though this was a case based almost entirely on conjecture and insinuation, it had real-world consequences. For four years dozens of Mail journalists lived under a cloud of unfair suspicion, and our parent group, Associated Newspapers, spent enormous amounts of time and resources trying to prove our innocence.

We successfully defended every story. It was a difficult process, but it had to be done. The Mail has a long and proud reputation for accurate and courageous journalism. We guard this reputation jealously.

The judge lavishly praised the Mail’s witnesses and commented on their integrity and sincerity. Daily Mail Royal Editor Rebecca English was described as ‘impressive and honest’ and former deputy editor Stephen Wright was described as ‘an accurate witness’.

Mr Justice Nicklin was less complimentary about some of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

While the judge did not find him ‘generally dishonest’, in one particular case former Hacked Off managing director Dr. He said Evan Harris made an ‘inappropriate and dishonest offer’.

‘The general situation is that Dr. “I cannot trust Harris’ account unless it is supported by contemporary documentary material,” he added.

Freedom of the press is an old freedom, but it is increasingly fragile. Many newspapers are struggling financially as they compete with an unregulated internet filled with misinformation and lies.

Meanwhile, organizations like Hacked Off would be happy to see the press sterilized by state regulation; This will severely limit the ability of journalists to expose wrongdoing and speak truth to power.

Unlike social media, newspapers are currently subject to strict laws regarding defamation, disparagement and data protection. They are also subject to independent regulation by IPSO, so placing further regulatory burdens on them would be perverse and dangerous.

Yesterday’s decision was a great victory, but we must never let our guard down. Freedom of the press guarantees the right to criticize and oppose. It is the cornerstone of our democracy, which must be constantly defended against those who seek to crush it.