Prince Harry’s Case Against Daily Mail Publisher Returns to Court

Prince Harry’s legal case against the publisher of the Daily Mail is back in court, just weeks after a judge rejected the claims brought by the Duke of Sussex and several other well-known figures.

Harry and the other claimants had accused Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, of using illegal methods to collect private information for stories about them. ANL denied all the allegations.

The case was heard during an 11-week trial in London earlier this year. However, on July 7, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the claims, saying the evidence presented by the claimants was not strong enough to prove their case.

The legal dispute will now return to court for a two-day hearing starting at 10:30am. The hearing is expected to focus on issues arising from the judgment, including legal costs and whether any of the claimants plan to challenge the ruling through an appeal.

ANL has said its legal costs have already passed £50 million.

The original trial examined 97 articles that the claimants alleged had been based on information obtained through unlawful means. Several people gave evidence, including the high-profile claimants as well as current and former journalists and senior staff members from ANL.

Lawyers representing the claimants accused private investigators, freelance reporters and newspaper employees of using methods such as intercepting voicemails, tapping landlines and obtaining private information through deception.

However, ANL’s legal team strongly rejected those allegations. They argued that the newspaper’s stories came from legitimate sources, including friends, press officers, spokespersons, freelance journalists, previous reports and other media organisations.

In his ruling, the judge said the court could not assume that information was obtained illegally simply because it was private or because the publisher could not explain exactly how every piece of information had been sourced.

Following the judgment, ANL editor-in-chief Paul Dacre described the case as a “trumped-up action” that should never have reached trial. Harry and Lady Lawrence, however, called the ruling a “complete and obvious whitewash” and said they had sought justice and accountability but received neither.