Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 4

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fourth thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) brought against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited; ANL) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).

The claimants are: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF).
They are represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) is represented by Anthony White (AMW).

The threads to date have been thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views. We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding partisan discussions on specific Royal Family members, and trying not to be derailed from the topic of court proceedings.
The case has concluded and we are now awaiting the judgement from Judge Nicklin.

We have also included (when things slowed with the title case) other cases or discussions with a specific theme of free speech/press freedom, particularly when related to those with money or power preventing others from speaking.

One current ongoing case is that involving @GwendolineFairfax8 - some details towards the end of thread 3.
The case is in court this week and is likely to be reported on at the end of the week.

Links to previous threads

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

There was limited direct reporting from court after the celebrities gave evidence; what there we followed on this link
Sky news link to court case

Fantastic news.

Will now spend the afternoon reading all 436 pages

Thanks for the links,

I hope they do sue for defamation.

If it didn't happen, it didn't happen.

Harry's going to want to smoke a lot of weed tonight. No wonder he wasn't keen on staying at Buck Palace and prefers friends' houses where he can indulge his spliff addiction.

Harry will be incandescent! No victory speech for him!

more than £50 million in legal fees too, eek!

I might sit down and read the whole judgement, see what interesting nuggets are in there

I find it unlikely that the DM didn’t do ANY of the things they were accused of, especially when such practices were rife at other newspapers at the time. However, the decision is the right one if there is no evidence.

who pays the costs to be determined at a further court date at 29/30 July 2026 is my reading of the order issued today

It’s a proper vindication for the Daily Mail - the Claimants alleged that three senior Mail executives — Paul Dacre, Elizabeth Hartley and Peter Wright — had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. The Court also held that those
allegations had not been proven.

Sky News 1410
Prince Harry and his fellow co-claimants have lost their privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
In a summary of his 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove their pleaded allegations of unlawful information gathering, and therefore their claims were dismissed.
He said the High Court rejected the claimants' attempt to prove their allegations by broad inference "where there remained a legitimate and realistic possible lawful source pathway, or where the article-specific evidence did not prove that the relevant information must have been obtained unlawfully".
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) argued throughout the trial that they had sourced stories legitimately.
They also argued the claims had been brought too late, a defence known as limitation - in this case, six years.
Addressing this, the judge said in his summary that the claimants had relied on an exception to that rule, arguing that the facts relevant to their claims had been deliberately concealed by Associated.
However, he said, because the claims were dismissed on their merits, it was not necessary for the court to decide Associated's limitation defence in relation to most of the claims.

Hidden away in Appendix 2 (A2.12) is an elegantly phrased burn for Harry which (in judge speak) basically says he was a useless witness and didn't help his case!

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, and exchanges followed with Mr White KC in that vein. As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves. However, when giving evidence, that is not a burden they are required to carry. The responsibility for advancing the party’s case rests with the advocate. 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.

Twice in as many days.

The defense was fatally flawed from the start. Dodgy paid for witnesses, zero evidence.

Sherborne just saw dollar signs from a potentially huge compensation plan from everyone who had a story they didn’t agree with in the Daily Mail.

ANL statement:
A spokesperson for ANL said:
"Associated Newspapers welcomes today's judgement, 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 judgement 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 £50m 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."

We don't know what they did or didn't. But they certainly shouldn't be condemned based on the argument that celebrity friends don't leak which was the constant argument advanced in the trial.

I wonder if Harry is just finding out along with the rest of us?

If he had advance notice of this complete loss it may have motivated his epic shenanigans over the past few days.

That will be interesting.

surely with such a resounding win for the Mail, the claimants should pay all their costs? It’s not as if they didn’t need to robustly defend themselves!

But maybe that’s not how it works.

Indeed - that said I’d be surprised if he was yapping about victory speeches if he knew the result. Maybe Sherbourne was trying to warn him that it didn’t look great and his assumption was that he would only win on one or two points - I’d be amazed if he was expecting to lose so badly.

I said on the previous thread that it might have explained the recent hysteria

And likely the U-turn and sudden desperation to stay at BP and cosy-up to the King - so he could give a "victim" interview direct from the palace and tap up his father to pay costs.

I thought the judge warned them at one point that their insurance would not cover their costs.

Do you even know what the DM was accused of?! All the allegations were false - take it from someone who knows.

To say I am happy with the judgement is an understatement.

Every single claim dismissed. They do have individual and group ATE insurance, it's questionable if it is going to pay out based on that verdict though (but I'm not an expert).

I expect the Mail will be arguing for indemnity costs (i.e. they are repaid every penny they have spent) on the basis that such a poor claim should never have been brought. It will be the judge’s decision whether to award that, or the normal costs in the case, which is about 70% of your actual costs.

If any of the defendants took out After The Event Insurance, that should pay both their cost liability and their own legal bills. Although for a case this expensive, the premium for the policy will have been eye watering

I think probably yes - because Harry's PR would have had a statement ready to go if they knew the result

I expect Barrister Bouffant is smiling as he gets paid either way 🍸

I don't see how it could. Given that the costs will run into millions, that would have to be pretty expensive insurance. I mean, one side has to lose. It's not a hypothetical thing as if often the case with insurance, so the premium must be steep,

Harry and his co-defendants must be on the hook for millions surely?