BREAKING NEWS: PRINCE HARRY HAS JUST SUFFERED A MAJOR LEGAL SETBACK IN HIS CASE AGAINST THE PUBLISHER OF THE DAILY MAIL…
The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other high-profile figures against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full.
The case brought by the Duke of Sussex and six fellow claimants, including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, was heard at a three-month trial at London‘s High Court at the beginning of this year.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, accepted that every article complained about was lawfully sourced.
The claim was brought against Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
In an executive summary of his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘Associated called journalist witnesses who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.
‘The Court accepted their evidence, including their denials of UIG [unlawful information gathering].
+1
View gallery
The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry (pictured today speaking at an Invictus Games event at Chatham House after the judgment), Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other high-profile figures against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full
‘The allegations were serious: they included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.’
An Associated Newspapers spokesman said: ‘Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgment, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free Press generally.
‘Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.
‘This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.
‘For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.
‘As we said at the time, these allegations were “lurid” and “preposterous”, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free Press.
‘The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.
‘As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.
‘Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50million in legal costs.
‘We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.’
Prince Harry flew in from California to give evidence in his case, which lasted only 75 minutes.
Bristling with anger, he told the judge his wife’s life had been made ‘an absolute misery’, even though the Duchess of Sussex had nothing to do with the case.
Yet far from being a victim of phone hacking, evidence emerged Prince Harry had spoken to journalists himself and even partied at a country house one weekend with a Mail on Sunday reporter who called him ‘Mr Mischief’.
Harry called her ‘sugar’ and wrote to her: ‘Miss our movie snuggles!!’
The judge said that in assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, ‘it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue. At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues.’
Mr Justice Nicklin added: ‘As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves.
‘Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept. As with each of the claimants, Prince Harry has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.’
From the moment the case began in 2022, the Daily Mail has consistently denied the accusations, for which there was never any credible evidence.
Even the claimants’ own supposed star witness, a private investigator named Gavin Burrows, told them he had never worked for the Mail, yet they ploughed ahead with the case anyway.
Prince Harry, Ms Hurley, Sir Elton, his husband David Furnish and Baroness Lawrence all launched their claims on the basis of alleged ‘admissions’ from Mr Burrows about hacking their voicemails, tapping their landlines, bugging Hugh Grant’s car and, in Ms Hurley’s case, placing a sticky microphone on her dining room window – none of which was true.
Mr Burrows said in his evidence that his ‘confession’ statement had been penned by Prince Harry’s legal researchers and was ‘a pack of lies’ complete with a forgery for his signature.
The statement was authenticated with a ‘certificate of compliance’ by Baroness Lawrence’s glamorous solicitor Anjlee Sangani, who quit the case just before the trial started.
When Mr Burrows came to give evidence on oath, the claimants tied themselves in knots and were reduced to calling their star witness a liar and a drunk.
The judge dismissed all the Burrows allegations.
Mr Justice Nicklin found that Mail journalist Stephen Wright gave truthful evidence, his explanations were ‘coherent and plausible’, and the allegation he had corruptly paid police officers was dismissed.
His ruling said: ‘I accept Mr Wright’s evidence that he has not made corrupt payments to serving police officers, whether in relation to the specific incidents alleged or generally.’
The judge also said the Daily Mail’s Royal Editor Rebecca English was ‘an impressive and honest witness’, adding that her explanations for where she had sourced stories were ‘entirely plausible’.
He threw out an allegation that she had tried to get the flight details of Prince Harry’s former girlfriend Chelsy Davy.
The judge was critical of the claimants’ lawyers for advancing allegations against Ms English at her trial in relation to phone hacking which were ‘entirely unsupported by evidence’.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘It was, in substance, a serious allegation advanced without particulars and without evidential foundation.’
Elizabeth Hurley, who repeatedly sobbed into a tissue throughout her own time in the witness box, claimed 15 articles, published between 2002 and 2011, were the result of ‘unlawful information gathering’, accusing the Mail of ‘monstrous’ conduct.
But the model and actress’s allegations including that the Mail planted ‘sticky window microphones’ on her windowsill relied heavily on the suggestion that Mr Burrows had ‘confessed’ to targeting her – which he said was lies.
The judge accepted Ms Hurley’s evidence in the witness box, saying: ‘It was clear that she had been deeply shocked when she learned of Mr Burrows’ allegations concerning her. As with each of the Claimants, she has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.’
Sir Elton John, giving testimony over a video link wearing bright-blue-framed glasses, snapped at the Mail’s barrister Catrin Evans KC and demanded to know why he wasn’t being questioned about the ‘horrendous things’ that the Claimants’ legal team alleged Mr Burrows had done in a his claim brought jointly with his husband.
The judge said that Sir Elton had been ‘straightforward and considered’ in his evidence but ‘at times, he appeared to find the limited extent to which he was questioned to be frustrating’.
Like the other claimants, the singer had ‘limited evidence to give’ on the matters in hand.
Media lawyer Louis Charalambous called today’s judgment ‘a calamity for all seven claimants’.
He said: ‘It is rare for a newspaper to win cases like this. The spotlight will now be on the people who encouraged the claimants to bring these cases and the financial position it puts them in. In all likelihood spells the end of this kind of litigation.’
SOURCE: https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15958505/Prince-Harrys-phone-hacking-case-against-Daily-Mail-dismissed-full.html