Prince Harry told ‘you’re taking the p***’ after huge blow | Royal | News

Prince Harry lost a landmark case against publishers The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday earlier this month, estimated to cost £50 million. The Duke of Sussex condemned the verdict as a “complete and clear exoneration”, sparking concerns that he was criticizing the judiciary acting on behalf of his father, the King. Harry and six other plaintiffs suffered a comprehensive defeat as their cases were dismissed in their entirety. They claimed that journalists used illegal means to obtain information.

Private Eye reporter Adam Macqueen explained the significance of the decision in the magazine’s podcast. He said: “I have gone through the entirety of Mr Justice Nicklin’s 436-page judgment, which appeared last week, and have searched desperately for a single scrap of information that might give Prince Harry and his co-defendants some comfort. In fact, there isn’t one.”

“This is, I think, the most comprehensive dismissal of any claim I have ever seen in a legal decision.”

His colleague Helen Lewis said the Judge was “so unimpressed with them that he might actually have said, ‘You never should have brought that.'” [case]’… You’re actually involved and I’m going to make you pay the Daily Mail more money than insurance will cover.’

The man agreed, saying: “‘You bought it’ was actually a little more legalistic.”

He added that a costs hearing was coming up, which the judge described as a “consequences hearing.”

The man suggested it sounded like he was saying “there will be consequences.”

The summary of the decision included the following statements: “The Court accepted that Plaintiffs’ cases were often based on inference, given the nature and age of the allegations. However, suspicion, even if understandable, is not sufficient. Plaintiffs had to prove that the information complained of was obtained unlawfully.”

“The court rejected the argument that the relevant article must have been sourced unlawfully because the information was private and Associated could not affirmatively explain how it was obtained.”

He added that “plaintiffs have failed to prove their allegations regarding UIG.”

The document also states: “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.”

As for next steps, the court said a hearing will be held July 30-29 “to hear arguments on the points in dispute regarding consequential orders to be issued following the decision.”