Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 4

1000 replies

bluegreygreen · 12/05/2026 17:19

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Viviennemary · 07/07/2026 15:31

Serves him bloody well right. He is an absolute pain in the neck.

bluegreygreen · 07/07/2026 15:33

MrsLeonFarrell · 07/07/2026 15:25

I suspect Andy Burnham will have far more important things to focus on.

True enough.

OP posts:
Lunde · 07/07/2026 15:33

bluegreygreen · 07/07/2026 15:01

Yes, sorry - just being very hopeful!

I have a horrible feeling that Sherborne and/or Harry and/or any of the other claimants many use this line in the summary to try to spin something out of the judgement:

It follows that the Court has not made findings as to whether UIG was “widespread and habitual” at Associated.

I don't think it's necessarily a problem - didn't it follow a paragraph that said

  • there was no intention to make this case a public inquiry into such claims by the plaintiffs
  • that the judgement covers the cases that Harry & co brought to court
bluegreygreen · 07/07/2026 15:34

Heading out shortly - looking forward to catching up with all your thoughts later.

OP posts:
Rhaidimiddim · 07/07/2026 15:35

IcedPurple · 07/07/2026 15:03

She's a grown woman. Surely she could have done her own research rather than being 'coerced' by a fool like Harry?

With a reputation for tenacity and feistiness, with a seat in the HoL. No pity here.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/07/2026 15:35

BTW someone asked earlier today about the Chelsy Davey/flight records allegation ... if you scroll about a third of thhe way down the judgement it's Item 25, “Harry Besotted with Chelsy, his first true love”: Mail on Sunday 28 November 2004 (Caroline Graham & Barbara Jones)

And you're right about this not being Doreen's first rodeo in suing people, @Lunde - also about the £320k received from the Met
Except reading this latest judgement it turns out they tried to haggle it up to £500,000

Justdancevance · 07/07/2026 15:36

He went to court with no evidence, just his feelings of being hard done by.

He needs to move on, and hopefully this loss will force him into doing that.

They need to find a sustainable life and be grateful for all they’ve gotten

i’m reading ‘yesteryear’ Some bits of it remind me of Meghan and Harry. I’m about 2 thirds of the way through so no spoilers 😉

Rhaidimiddim · 07/07/2026 15:38

Thedom · 07/07/2026 15:06

I get that, she said he told her they had definitive proof, she foolishly believed him, she probably saw all these high flying legal eagles and was sure they had a strong case, she clearly realized too late and couldn’t back out.

She works in a seat of legislature. She is surrounded, every time she bowls up for work, by lawyers. People trained in the law. She should have befriended some of them and asked their advice, made the most of her advantages.

smilesy · 07/07/2026 15:43

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/07/2026 15:35

BTW someone asked earlier today about the Chelsy Davey/flight records allegation ... if you scroll about a third of thhe way down the judgement it's Item 25, “Harry Besotted with Chelsy, his first true love”: Mail on Sunday 28 November 2004 (Caroline Graham & Barbara Jones)

And you're right about this not being Doreen's first rodeo in suing people, @Lunde - also about the £320k received from the Met
Except reading this latest judgement it turns out they tried to haggle it up to £500,000

I do think that some of the problem here with litigants going to court with scant evidence is that they seem to (bizarrely) believe that hurty feelings and trying to paint the press as the bad guys is enough to get a favourable verdict and a big pay day. Harry obviously believes that the press are all out to get him, but I’m sure he is equally mindful that a win would have helped him enormously in a financial sense and this must have been a factor in his actions. No idea what Elton’s motivation was though 😆

elessar · 07/07/2026 15:46

I’m reading the judgement, and now on the evidence related to the specific articles, it starts with DL.

only read the first two so far but it is honestly staggering they felt that this was a case worth bringing.

The first one rests on the article about the public enquiry and supposed claim by Hart that she blagged DL by pretending to be a Guardian journalist. It gets totally dismantled on several points, and the final one Nicklin says even if she had pretended to be a Guardian journo it wouldn’t matter anyway as the comment would be accepted as being used for publication!

The second one entirely rests on some claim about a £200 payment entitled Damilola
/Lawrence that DL says must have been a payment to get the details about her £320k settlement. The Mail point out that the payment was 8 weeks after the article appeared and relates to an article about Damilola Taylor and Frances Lawrence.

I’ll keep reading, but it’s all SO flaky that a sensible person would never have gone forwards with this. They must have all been blinded by greed, arrogance and desire for vengeance.

Twisterr · 07/07/2026 15:49

Recklessismymiddlename · 07/07/2026 15:27

I’m pleased for you @AgileRobin and @GwendolineFairfax8

Also very pleased for you both @AgileRobinand @GwendolineFairfax8 - court cases are hideous ordeals that often take as much or more toll on you as the original issue. I really hope you take some comfort and much strength from today’s victory.

AgileRobin · 07/07/2026 15:57

Twisterr · 07/07/2026 15:49

Also very pleased for you both @AgileRobinand @GwendolineFairfax8 - court cases are hideous ordeals that often take as much or more toll on you as the original issue. I really hope you take some comfort and much strength from today’s victory.

That’s very kind and really uplifting ❤️

Twisterr · 07/07/2026 15:57

elessar · 07/07/2026 15:46

I’m reading the judgement, and now on the evidence related to the specific articles, it starts with DL.

only read the first two so far but it is honestly staggering they felt that this was a case worth bringing.

The first one rests on the article about the public enquiry and supposed claim by Hart that she blagged DL by pretending to be a Guardian journalist. It gets totally dismantled on several points, and the final one Nicklin says even if she had pretended to be a Guardian journo it wouldn’t matter anyway as the comment would be accepted as being used for publication!

The second one entirely rests on some claim about a £200 payment entitled Damilola
/Lawrence that DL says must have been a payment to get the details about her £320k settlement. The Mail point out that the payment was 8 weeks after the article appeared and relates to an article about Damilola Taylor and Frances Lawrence.

I’ll keep reading, but it’s all SO flaky that a sensible person would never have gone forwards with this. They must have all been blinded by greed, arrogance and desire for vengeance.

Yes greed, arrogance and need for vengeance is a dangerous and heady emotional concoction.

ThatCyanCat · 07/07/2026 16:01

How much are the claimants all going to have to pay and will it be shared equally among them?

HoldMyWine · 07/07/2026 16:01

I can’t imagine that SF and SH have lots of money to spare to pay for their legal costs. They were out of time anyway so why did they go ahead?

Pepperlee · 07/07/2026 16:15

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/07/2026 15:06

Unfortunately so is Harry Hmm

🤣🤣🤣

Passingthrough123 · 07/07/2026 16:16

Paul Dacre's statement is blisteringly withering about Harry!

"Four years ago, lawyers for Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and Elton John accused the Mail, in a blaze of publicity, of placing bugs in homes, cars, cafés and landline phones. We described these charges – some related to stories that were over 30 years old – as “lurid and preposterous”. Today, in what was a momentous victory for the Mail, the High Court dismissed every single one of the 97 claims."

"That is an OVERWHELMING vindication of our journalism.
The Mail’s famous front-page naming five thugs as Stephen Lawrence’s “MURDERERS”, could have seen me jailed for contempt of court. Instead, it triggered the McPherson Inquiry and the eventual jailing of two of the killers. Stephen’s father, Neville, says he owes the Mail everything. Why Baroness Lawrence – for whom we have always had profound respect and sympathy – chose to turn on both the paper, and the brilliant reporter who campaigned for justice for her son for over two decades, is something I will never be able to comprehend."

"Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin."

"Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante."

"The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession."

"Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper."

"Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper."

"Some of the allegations made by Harry’s lawyers against the Mail involved Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. They were rejected by the Court. But remember it was the power of the Mail’s journalism that, not once, but twice, resulted in Mandelson being sacked as a minister. And it was the Mail on Sunday’s exclusive picture of Prince Andrew, with his arm around 17 year old Virginia Guiffre in Ghislaine Maxwell’s home, that, ultimately, resulted in justice for Epstein’s underage victims."

"Such justice only happened, as with Stephen Lawrence, because of the actions of a free press."

Recklessismymiddlename · 07/07/2026 16:21

That is a scathing statement.

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 07/07/2026 16:25

There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin.
😂

But he is right, we need a free press, especially with the rise of Social Media.

Batcats · 07/07/2026 16:29

I'm really not quite sure what Harry being a dad and poor mental health has to do with anything. Having poor mental health isn't some get out clause that absolves you of all responsibility or that you should be free from criticism. Harry turned up to court with no evidence and the court have rightfully found not in his favour. Actions have consequences, his being liable for the court costs and to accept the findings of the court.

Yes Harry lost his mum young and this causes trauma and doing so in the public eye of course exacerbated this. The thing is, Harry isn't the 13 year old boy people still see him as. He's a 41 year old grown man with his own life. He has vast amount of resources and access to any type of support he wants. He has access to best mental health support there is. He's a dad as people point out who has round the clock 24/7 support to support him in this. There's many people who have lost parents young who simply dont have the support or resources he has. Who have to wait on NHS waiting lists for months for time limited support. Who dont have childcare support on tap to help them access these appointments or support.

At some point you have to move out victim mode if you want to make something of your life., something Harry has quite frankly failed to do. I also wonder now how his "life's mission" to transform the media is going now.

Thedom · 07/07/2026 16:36

It’s behind a paywall, and it won’t allow me archive.

MrsLeonFarrell · 07/07/2026 16:37

Notice the phrase "questions about the conduct of certain elements of the legal profession". I suspect consequences for some of the lawyers involved will be seen.

Thedom · 07/07/2026 16:37

Great statement from Paul Dacre.

CathyorClaire · 07/07/2026 16:48

Great verdict.

Great statement from Paul Dacre. Razor-sharp.

I imagine he's been honing it for a while 😁

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.