Baroness Lawrence and Prince Harry accuse judge of bias and whitewash in stinging statement

Prince Harry appeared to criticize the High Court judge who ruled against him in his failed lawsuit against the Daily Mail.

In an extraordinary 374-word statement, the Duke of Sussex referred to his previous work for newspapers just hours after Mr Justice Nicklin handed down a landmark judgment in its favour.

Harry’s statement, published jointly with Baroness Lawrence, said the decision felt like there was ‘one rule for newspapers and another for plaintiffs’.

He argued that Mr Justice Nicklin’s findings rejecting each of his claims were a significant departure from previous cases the judge had brought against other newspapers he had represented in the past, including the Daily Mirror.

Harry’s statement read: ‘This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position taken by previous judges in relation to the hacking allegations which were successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, which were represented at the time by the judge who made this decision.

‘In these parallel allegations the general findings by the courts that various private detectives engaged in unlawful activity at the same time in relation to similar stories and public figures were completely ignored.

‘The fact that the court chose to reject them represents an inconsistency or evidence heard in the courtroom that is difficult to understand or reconcile with common sense.’

Harry took a quick look at the verdict, describing it as a ‘blatant whitewash’, arguing that it represented a ‘shocking’ and ‘completely unwarranted’ exoneration of the Daily Mail and its journalists.

Prince Harry, pictured in April, said in a statement that Mr Justice Nicklin’s decision was a ‘clear exoneration’

He claimed: ‘This is a complete and obvious exoneration, but unfortunately not entirely unexpected.

‘But the court’s efforts to exonerate Mail are as shocking as they are completely unwarranted.

‘When the court says there is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, even though the documents show the contrary, then one wonders how justice will be served.’

Although more than 40 journalists from the Daily Mail took the witness stand to defend themselves, Harry still insists he was wronged after being accused of illegally gathering information.

He added: ‘While the plaintiffs gave evidence, the Mail journalists simply denied it and the court uncritically chose to believe them, even in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and blatant lies that were obvious to impartial observers in the court when compared with the documents.

‘We presented evidence to the court that we believed was credible at the time and remains so now.’

For 46 days, the newspaper vigorously defended accusations of wiretapping and wiretapping private recordings to obtain news.

In his decision, Judge Nicklin consistently found that the Daily Mail journalists were credible witnesses who gave clear evidence during their evidence.

In his executive summary of his decision, Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘The plaintiffs have failed to prove their allegations of UIG (unlawful information collection).’

Adding: ‘Overall, Associated has called journalistic witnesses who have provided legal explanations as to the origins of disputed articles and events.

‘The court accepted their evidence, including their dismissal of the UIG.’

In his decision, Judge Nicklin also rejected allegations against senior executives at the newspaper who were falsely accused of lying at the Leveson Press Conduct Inquiry in 2011.

Harry’s statement ended with: ‘Thank you to our legal team for all their hard work and all the witnesses brave enough to come forward in the pursuit of justice.’

Moments after the Supreme Court ruled against him, Harry was at Chatham House to host the Invictus Games for wounded, wounded and sick military personnel and veterans.

He cracked a joke at the event, trying to look relaxed in front of the cameras.

He told guests they were one of the few in the UK with air conditioning, ‘so I can see why every seat was taken’.

Addressing delegates, he said: ‘Each of us believes that those who serve their country, especially those whose lives are changed by that service, deserve more than our gratitude.

‘They deserve the opportunity. A chance to redefine one’s purpose and identity. They truly deserve to feel our admiration and respect. And they deserve every chance to build the life they choose beyond military service. That’s what the Invictus community is all about.’