Prince Harry and six other prominent individuals have lost their high-profile lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, and MailOnline. The group accused the publisher of systematic unlawful information-gathering, but the High Court dismissed all claims, ruling that they failed to prove any stories were obtained illegally.
In a comprehensive 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin found that the claimants had not demonstrated unlawful activity. The court ruled it could not simply infer illegality if a legitimate and realistic sourcing method existed. The judge also rejected allegations that senior Mail figures, including former editor Paul Dacre, had lied to the 2011-12 Leveson Inquiry into press ethics.
The seven claimants — Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence (mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence), Elton John and David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, and former Liberal Democrat minister Simon Hughes — alleged “clear, systematic and sustained” unlawful practices by ANL journalists and private investigators over many years. They cited 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015, plus three non-published incidents.
ANL strongly denied the claims, describing them as “lurid” and “preposterous.” The publisher maintained that all stories were sourced legitimately from press officers, prior reporting, or celebrity social circles.
The claimants’ case suffered a major blow when a central witness, private investigator Gavin Burrows, disavowed his own witness statement, calling it a forgery and denying he had carried out illegal work for the Mail titles. Justice Nicklin ruled he could not reliably rely on the statement.
During the 11-week trial, dozens of editors and journalists, including Paul Dacre, gave evidence denying any illegal activity. Harry, the first claimant to testify, said the Mail titles had made his wife’s life “an absolute misery.”
Prince Harry Challenges The Narrative Six Years After Royal Split
In a video statement after the verdict, Paul Dacre called the case a “conspiracy” by press regulation campaigners aimed at “destroying” the paper. He expressed particular surprise at Doreen Lawrence’s involvement, noting the Mail’s long campaign for justice for her son. Dacre also described Harry as a “confused and angry young man” and recalled that Princess Diana had been a reader of the Mail.
ANL is seeking to recover its legal costs, potentially leaving the claimants with a bill of up to £50 million. The publisher described the ruling as an “overwhelming victory” for the Daily Mail, its journalists, and a free press.
The judgment is expected to deter further litigation linked to the phone-hacking scandal era. The Mail made no admissions and fully defended the case, arguing all articles in question resulted from legitimate journalism. The claimants’ lawyers noted difficulties accessing documents from the period, with many records reportedly missing or destroyed.
Harry’s Previous Actions
This was the final major newspaper hacking case brought by Prince Harry. He previously won substantial damages against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, where the judge found that a significant number of stories about him involved phone hacking or unlawful methods. He also settled his claim against the publisher of The Sun (News Group Newspapers) last year after the group issued a full apology for unlawful intrusion into his private life between 1996 and 2011.
The broader phone-hacking scandal, first exposed by The Guardian, led to the closure of the News of the World in 2011 and the Leveson Inquiry. Newspapers have paid out millions in settlements to victims since then.