Key facts
- The Duke of Sussex described his legal battles with the British media as his "life's work."
- He recently lost a High Court case against Associated Newspapers Ltd. (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail.
- All claims of unlawful information gathering by seven high-profile claimants, including the Duke, were dismissed.
- The judge stated that suspicion was not proof and that claimants had limited evidence.
- The Duke and Baroness Doreen Lawrence issued a joint statement calling the ruling a "complete and obvious whitewash."
- The claimants face a potential £50 million legal bill.
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, has described his legal battles with sections of the British media as his "life's work" following a recent High Court loss against Associated Newspapers Ltd. (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail. The judge vindicated the publisher's defence that there had been no wrongdoing, dismissing all claims of unlawful information gathering by seven high-profile claimants, including the Duke.
The judge stated that suspicion was not proof and that the claimants had presented limited evidence. Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993, issued a joint statement calling the ruling a "complete and obvious whitewash." The Duke's lawyers have not yet indicated whether they will appeal.
The legal saga dates back to 2007 when royal phones were discovered to have been hacked by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, leading to his conviction and that of News of the World Royal Correspondent Clive Goodman. A subsequent investigation by The Guardian newspaper in 2009 revealed widespread phone hacking, leading to the closure of the News of the World and the conviction of its senior journalists and editor Andy Coulson in 2014.
This led to numerous civil claims against News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, costing the publishers hundreds of millions of pounds in settlements, damages, and apologies. Prince Harry, who was initially advised by the Palace not to get involved, eventually pursued claims against these publishers, achieving a victory against Mirror Group Newspapers and settling with News Group Newspapers.
However, the case against Associated Newspapers proved more challenging. The judge made it more difficult for claimants by requiring conclusive proof that every newspaper story was obtained unlawfully, rather than allowing "generic evidence" about journalists' "propensity" to break rules. The judge also found issues with how evidence was gathered, deeming the work of Graham Johnson, a former journalist who paid private investigators for information, "unconvincing." Statements from private investigator Gavin Burrows were also deemed unreliable, cancelling each other out.
Baroness Lawrence stated that Prince Harry and his lawyers approached her with potential evidence, suggesting she join the legal battle. Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre questioned her decision to turn on the paper, which had campaigned for justice for her son.