Prince Harry loses High Court privacy case against Daily Mail publisher

The Duke of Sussex and six others lost their High Court privacy case against the Daily Mail and the publisher of the Mail on Sunday.

Judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove allegations of illegal data collection.

Prince Harry made the case in Associated Press, along with many celebrities, including Sir Elton John, Sir Simon Hughes, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.

Allegations that the newspaper group used illegal methods to obtain information for stories, have been strongly denied by Associated Press.

A spokesman for the publisher described the ruling as “a fantastic victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists”.

In concluding his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the charges were serious and required more convincing evidence before they could be upheld.

The seven claimants said they could not be relied on “in any reasonable doubt”. Instead, he said, they had to prove that information was obtained illegally.

Mr Justice Nicklin declined to find out whether the so-called illegal data collection was “widespread and routine” at Associated Newspapers and instead decided on the merits of each individual claim.

He said he accepted the disloyalty of Associated Press journalists who gave legitimate explanations for the source of the controversial articles and events.

The claimants accused three senior Associated executives – former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright and the publisher’s senior lawyer Elizabeth Hartley – of lying in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry when they claimed there was no wrongdoing at the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.

In his full judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin examined each breach of privacy, and noted that there was often uncertainty about how information was obtained by journalists.

In an article, the Daily Mail’s Royal Editor wrote that in 2013, Prince Harry faced New Year’s Eve alone without his girlfriend Cressida Bonas.

A freelance journalist reportedly asked Ms Bonas to “spoil” travel details.

In his testimony, Prince Harry said it was “sad” and he did not know how the newspaper had obtained information about the couple’s separate location.

Mr Justice Nicklin said: “I find the article intrusive and I admit that I am genuinely concerned about how journalists are privy to private information about their relationships. But suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof.”