Up to £38m legal costs, 4-year wait and 14 news articles: Harry’s court battle with Daily Mail publisher in numbers

At a decisive moment in his testimony to the Supreme Court, Prince Harry briefly appeared overcome with emotion.

Before making claims of “24-hour surveillance” and “people writing about you claiming it is in the public interest when it clearly isn’t”, the judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, told the Duke of Sussex there was no need for him to argue his view as a witness; It was enough for him to answer the questions asked of him.

Harry said: “I just want you to have an idea of ​​what it’s like to live in this world.”

Over 45 days, the Royal Courts of Justice hosted a hearing hearing arguments against Harry and six others, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Daily Mailpublished by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The court heard the plaintiffs, who alleged unlawful collection of information from tapping landlines to obtaining information by deception, had been subjected to “breach”, “profound betrayal” and “shock and awe”.

But it was Prince Harry, in his third legal dispute with a newspaper group, who attracted the most media attention as he shed light on their relationship in the tabloid spotlight during a two-hour meeting with lawyers acting on behalf of ANL.

ANL has strongly denied the allegations, saying it has a “culture of professionalism and discipline”. Antony White KC said the group’s claim was engineered as a “political campaign” by press reform campaign group Hacked Off and that the broadcaster had mounted a “robust and comprehensive” defence.

The stakes are high for both sides, with Mr Justice Nicklin set to make his decision on Tuesday. Here, Independent If we look at the case with numbers:

Two hours: Tetchy Harry interrogated

There was laughter in the courtroom when the Duke of Sussex took the witness stand and admitted he couldn’t remember how he was referred to when he last appeared in court – but by the end of the session, Harry was close to tears.

Answering questions from barrister David Sherborne on behalf of the group suing ANL, Harry said: “They continue to come after me, they have made my wife’s life a complete misery, my Lord.”

Wearing a dark suit and striped tie, Harry spent nearly two hours in the witness box, swearing on the Bible, before giving evidence. Taking notes and asking for hard copies of news articles that he was being questioned about, he said he did not have “leaky” social circles.

“When you encounter such a situation and something special emerges, your circle of trust and knowledge decreases over time.” He added: “The things described in these articles are not the kind of things I would talk about openly.”

Harry also claimed he was “forced” to work with reporters and said it was “beyond cruel” to publish an article about his “secret discussions” after a photo of the dying Diana was published in the Italian press.

In his written statement, Harry described an article published in the magazine. Daily Mail In July 2006, he described private conversations with his brother, now the Prince of Wales, as “truly disgusting”.

He said in the witness box: “The amount of information and detail in this article would not have come from Clarence House; they were clearly wiretapping calls and spending large sums of money on private detectives.”

ANL has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and is defending the allegations.

Four years, 45 days trial period: Wait for the decision after the claim papers are first served

October 2022 was the date when the claim form was first submitted by the seven claimants against ANL; Almost four years later, the trial began at the Royal Courts of Justice on 19 January. It lasted 45 days until March 31, when all parties’ closing arguments were completed.

A decision was expected on July 7 this year, 1,370 days after the request forms were first submitted on October 6.

Seven plaintiffs: Harry is among the names awaiting the decision

The Duke of Sussex and a group of others face a wait to find out whether they have won their case against them in the High Court. Daily Mail‘s publisher.

During an 11-week trial, the High Court in London heard claims from the group, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and her husband David Furnish, of illegal information collection against ANL.

The rest of the band includes Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes.

Lady Lawrence claimed Daily Mail He was pretending to support justice for his son, Stephen Lawrence, who was killed in a racist attack in 1993. His lawyers claim he was “extensively targeted” by private detectives to obtain information, including bribe payments to police.

Sir Elton and Mr Furnish claimed 10 articles about them were based on illegal information gathering, including illegally obtained medical information and tapping landlines. The couple claimed that their son Zachary’s birth certificate was stolen without a copy being obtained.

Ms Frost claimed the information behind some of the articles about her was “hacked from my voicemails” because it was “verbatim” from her messages.

Miss Hurley blamed Daily Mail The publisher who stole her medical records while she was pregnant with her son.

ANL denied the allegations.

14 articles: Harry’s case based on stories published between 2001 and 2013

The Duke of Sussex claimed 14 articles published by ANL were based on illegal information gathering. His lawyers said the stories were written between 2001 and 2013 and “focused primarily, in a highly intrusive and damaging way, on the relationships he had established, or rather sought to establish, in the years before he met his current wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.”

The articles also include an article about the Duke of Sussex’s decision to name his former nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke as his child’s godfather. According to written statements by attorney David Sherborne, only three people were aware of the decision before the article was written. mail on sunday Journalist Katie Nicholl has no knowledge of anyone in the extended family, including the current King. Mr Sherborne said there was “no reasonably legitimate source for the information”. ANL said the article was “obtained entirely from legal sources”.

Another story concerned Harry’s reported affair with TV presenter Natalie Pinkham. Mr Sherborne said the information passed on by Ms Nicholl was known only to her “close circle of friends” and it was “not credible” that she had received it from a club promoter or freelance journalist. ANL said the journalist “had various sources at the time who knew both Ms Pinkham and the Duke of Sussex well”.

One of the stories was about Harry’s relationship with his first serious girlfriend, Laura Gerard-Leigh, and their “intentions and habits as a couple”. Harry claimed it was “extraordinary” that the information had made it to the press due to “the secrecy it entailed and the ‘small’ circle of friends who knew about it”. ANL said the story, written by Ms Nicholl and freelance journalist Andy Buckwell, was based partly on photographs of the couple with friends at the Badminton Horse Trials.

40 journalists: Members of the press who participated in the case on behalf of ANL

More than 40 witnesses attended the hearing on behalf of ANL. Daily Mail In his written statement, editor Paul Dacre said it was “inconceivable” that anyone at the paper could have carried out the alleged activities.

He later said the allegations had had a “deeply distressing” and sometimes “traumatic” impact on staff at the newspaper, adding: “I have witnessed the suffering of honest, dedicated journalists who have had an insidious dark shadow hanging over their lives for three years.”

The ANL said the allegation was devised by press reform campaign group Hacked Off as part of a “political campaign to show that the ANL misled the Leveson Inquiry to pressure the government to implement the second part of the inquiry”. Mr Dacre told the court he “absolutely” denied the allegation that he had lied to the investigation into press standards.

Up to £38 million: Cost of legal battle

Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, the case has been extremely expensive.

Prior to the hearing, all parties submitted their budgets to the court, with the plaintiffs’ total budget coming to £18.7 million. ANL’s budget stood at £19.9 million.

In a judgment issued following last year’s costs management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin and Mr Justice David Cook concluded that the sums were “manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate”, allowing a total of £4.1 million for the claimants and £4.4 million for ANL.

The actual budget may be higher, but judges’ limits will likely reflect any reimbursements that may be awarded to cover costs.