Prince Harry, Elton John lose privacy lawsuit against Daily Mail publisher

Lead

Prince Harry and six other prominent figures have lost their privacy case against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. The High Court dismissed all claims on Tuesday, ruling that the claimants had not proved that information about them had been obtained unlawfully.

The Duke of Sussex, singer Elton John, actor Elizabeth Hurley and others had accused the publisher of using unlawful methods, including phone hacking, bugging and deception, to gather information for stories published from the 1990s to the 2010s. The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, said the claimants needed to prove that the published information had been obtained unlawfully, and that suspicion was not enough.

Coverage comparison

The ruling was covered by multiple outlets, each emphasising different aspects of the case. ABC Australia reported that Prince Harry lost his privacy case against Associated Newspapers, noting that the case was brought by Harry and six other claimants who accused the company of violating their privacy from the early 1990s until the 2010s.

Al Jazeera described the case as accusing Associated Newspapers of using unlawful ways of gathering information, and noted that the former working royal gave testimony at the High Court in January, the first royal to do so in 130 years. Al Jazeera also reported that the newspapers denied the allegations as "preposterous".

The Guardian focused on the costs of the failed case, reporting that Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, will not foot any of the multimillion-pound bill. The Guardian also reported that ANL will seek to recover its significant costs from defending the legal action.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the claimants alleged dozens of stories were based on unlawfully obtained information, and that the judge said suspicion was not enough to prove the claims. The South China Morning Post described the ruling as Prince Harry's "final lawsuit" against British tabloids ending in defeat, and noted that the case was the third and final of his lawsuits accusing tabloid publishers of using unlawful tactics.

Key claims

• The claimants: The case was brought by seven people: Prince Harry, Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, former Liberal Democrat minister Simon Hughes, and Doreen Lawrence. They presented 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015 that they claimed demonstrated unlawful information gathering, as reported by The Guardian.

• The allegations: The claimants accused ANL of "clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering" over several years, including phone hacking, landline tapping, bugging via private investigators, and making corrupt payments to police, as reported by The Guardian.

• The defence: ANL's legal team described the claims as "lurid" and "preposterous", insisting that stories were sourced legitimately from press officers, previous articles or the "leaky" social circles of celebrities, as reported by The Guardian and Al Jazeera.

• The ruling: Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all claims, stating the claimants had not proved information had been obtained unlawfully. The judge said the court could not infer a story was obtained unlawfully if there was a legitimate and realistic legal way in which it could have been sourced, as reported by The Guardian and the South China Morning Post.

• Costs: ANL will seek to recover its costs from defending the legal action. Estimates have been put at as much as £50m by Mail figures, though other sources close to the case said the real costs could be a small fraction of that amount, as reported by The Guardian. The publisher called the ruling an "overwhelming victory" and a "magnificent vindication" of Mail's journalism, as reported by the South China Morning Post.

• Doreen Lawrence's costs: The Guardian reported that Lawrence, who was convinced to join the legal action by Prince Harry and his legal team, will not have to pay any share of the costs. A source familiar with the matter was quoted as saying: "Nobody, least of all the duke, who is very protective over Doreen, is going to see her out of pocket."

• Harry's testimony: At the High Court in January, Prince Harry gave testimony and accused the Daily Mail of making the life of his wife, Meghan, "an absolute misery", as reported by Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post. He also said in legal filings that it was "disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it", as reported by the South China Morning Post.

Perspectives

• The claimants: The claimants argued that dozens of stories about them were based on unlawfully obtained information, and that the publisher engaged in "habitual and widespread" wrongdoing over many years, as reported by The Guardian and the Jerusalem Post.

• Associated Newspapers: The publisher denied the allegations as "preposterous" and insisted its stories were based on lawful sources, including friends, royal aides and publicists who offered information to reporters, as reported by Al Jazeera and The Guardian.

• The court: Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had not met the legal standard of proof required, noting that there was a realistic possibility the news came from legitimate sources, as reported by The Guardian and the South China Morning Post.