The Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence’s claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher over alleged unlawful information gathering have been dismissed by a High Court judge.
A group of household names, also including David Furnish, Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, alleged acts including voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception – also known as “blagging”, carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and staff at Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
ANL strongly denied the claims as it defended the cases, which it also said had been brought too late.
In a decision on Tuesday, judge Mr Justice Nicklin said that none of the group of seven had proven the allegations of unlawful information gathering.
He said in the 436-page ruling: “For the reasons given in this judgment, each of the claimants’ claims is dismissed.”
Following the judgment, ANL said the ruling dismissing the claims is an “overwhelming victory” and a “magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.
In a statement, the publisher continued: “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.”
ANL added: “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.”
In the ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said it was clear Harry “wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue” during his evidence in January.
The judge later said that it was up to the group of claimants to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “In substance, the claimants’ case invites the court to conclude that, because the information was private and because Associated cannot positively explain how it was sourced, the article must have been unlawfully sourced.
“That is not a permissible approach.”
The decision comes after Harry returned to the UK on Monday evening ahead of five days of appearances in London and Birmingham, including marking the one-year countdown to the 2027 Invictus Games.
The duke will not stay at Buckingham Palace during his return, with his spokesman saying on Monday that it was “disappointing” the offer from the King had been “withdrawn at the last moment”, with the looming judgment given as the reason.
He is said to have acted in good faith throughout the process, spending most of last week making alternative arrangements before formally accepting the offer for himself – for a single night.
Private conversations are said to have taken place between the duke and his father.
Harry and his team are understood to be frustrated the reasons given for the withdrawal of the offer shifted from not accepting the accommodation to the forthcoming judgment.
Dozens of people gave evidence during the trial in London, including Harry, the rest of the group of household names, also including Sir Simon Hughes, as well as many current or former ANL journalists and executives.
During around two hours of cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.
He also said in his written evidence that “knowingly false” information was added to stories to “put me off the scent”, to conceal unlawful methods, including voicemail interception.
As part of its defence, ANL said that Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles”, including friends and “leaky” social circles, press officers and spokespersons, as well as previous reporting, freelance journalists and stories from other newspapers and news agencies.
The trial also heard arguments over whether the cases were brought in time as the law states that legal action related to unlawful information-gathering must be launched within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.
Mr Justice Nicklin said that even if unlawful information gathering had been proven, Sir Simon and Ms Frost’s claims had been brought too late.
