Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 5

[bluegreygreen]

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

Judgement was handed down by Judge Nicklin on 7th July 2026.
All claims were dismissed.
Links to the summary and full judgement are below.
We are currently awaiting decisions around costs, with the next hearing due on 29-30th July.

The threads to date were thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views.
Following the judgement, we discussed the judgement itself, the reaction, statements made by different parties and ongoing relevant issues.

We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding more general discussion on Royal Family members, which can become partisan, and trying not to be derailed from the main topic of the thread.

We have occasionally 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.

Links to previous threads
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4

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

Summary judgement

Full judgement

I would donate to that GoFundMe!

I agree with this.

The sort of control that the claimant were demanding would turn the press into fawning, celebrity gossip publications and restrict investigative journalism into celebrity misconduct. The investigative articles about, for example, Phillip Schofield, Hugh Edwards, Russell Brand and AMW would not have been possible.

Is it a sign of a healthy democracy though?

This is a bit of a diversion from Harry’s case specifically but French courts for example traditionally hold that celebrity gossip, extramarital affairs, and family vacation photos, absolutely do not contribute to public democratic debate and I am with them there (except when a personal matter crosses boundaries in to the illegalities or state affairs obviously).

I’m not an expert but as I understand it France treats privacy as an absolute, statutory fundamental right from the outset, whereas the UK relies on balancing competing human rights case-by-case and it’s not automatic; you have to first prove that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that particular situation, so the outcomes are less predictable.

And in France, because a right to personal privacy is written in to the civil code, it’s quite easy and relatively cheap to prove an infraction, whereas the opposite is true in the UK so only the rich can afford try and as we are about to discover, the costs are punishing if you lose.

The Times Royal podcast did a really good episode about the costs of this case.

Yes, exactly, everything would be a People Magazine equivalent.

Interesting, @Slategrey788.

That may be the French courts' position, but it was French publications who published topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge (as she then was) and of the Wales children on holiday, which would not have been published (and indeed were not) in the UK.

Yes, there was redress through the courts, but there is clearly a press code that works in the UK.

So the French press never wondered why Brigitte M slapped Emanuel M? Or what Hollonde did with his mistress? Really? Dream on.

I think the press coverage here is fairer than it was and methods of gossip gathering have been cleaned up but celebs want publicity on their terms and that’s not always acceptable if they need to be called out. Ditto politicians. The press can do a very good job campaigning against the ills in society like the Stephen Lawrence murder. Press embargos are respected too.

So the French press never wondered why Brigitte M slapped Emanuel M? Or what Hollonde did with his mistress? Really? Dream on.

Of course not.

The French are far too mature and so sophistiqués to indulge in anything so vulgar and crass as gossip about public figures.

@IcedPurple Ha! And what about Brigitte’s court case? Not a murmur about that!

The Mail did me a couple of favours too highlighting specific campaigns with which I was involved back in the day involving injustices.

It then made it so much easier to get my MP on board, which in turn allowed us to persuade media like the Guardian and Private Eye to take a bit of notice.

The Mail’s possession of those huge resources was the first step of the ladder toward righting a few wrongs. We harnessed it. We knew its leanings. But we also needed the oxygen of publicity to make the bad guys talk to us.

All this was a long time ago, before social media took off. Another lifetime, it seems! But not forgotten.

Of course they did! The infraction costs are lower in France so the press take it on the chin and pay out. I think this leads to a better balance overall. People’s private lives shouldn’t be fair game unless it is in the public interest.

The UK press, for obvious reasons, has never been in favour of any expansion of privacy rights and has frequently engaged in judge-bashing when a privacy claim has succeeded.

What we have to guard against is the same rhetoric coming from government who want to stay on the right side of such a powerful press monopoly.

I’m not referring to this case specifically but it’s a worrying trend overall.

And yet was in France and a French photographer who took the topless photos of the then Duchess of Cambridge in a private house on a private holiday.

And let’s not mention the Paris underpass.

I think this leads to a better balance overall. People’s private lives shouldn’t be fair game unless it is in the public interest.

So how does this explain the Duchess of Cambridge/Wales children examples, which were not published in the UK?

What we have to guard against is the same rhetoric coming from government who want to stay on the right side of such a powerful press monopoly.

Rather, what is concerning about the current government is their apparent desire to associate with people like Hugh Grant, actively campaigning for press control.
I'm also not clear on where the idea of 'press monopoly' comes from; there are several large media groups.

the Paris underpass.
Very good point @SheinSussex.

Edited to say this in reply to SheinSussex’s post:
And yet was in France and a French photographer who took the topless photos of the then Duchess of Cambridge in a private house on a private holiday.
And let’s not mention the Paris underpass

Well obviously both French and British press photographers, and paps of all nationalities, try and cross the line when taking photos of the Royals.

We are talking about available redresses in law are we not?

And C & W were able to launch a swift and aggressive legal action in France to counteract the intrusion of the topless photos. They filed criminal complaints and civil lawsuits and they won €100,000 in damages (the judge imposed the maximum fine) which they donated to charity. They didn’t have to first prove that they expected privacy in that situation because that right is built in to the civil code.

In France, invading a person's private life and photographing them in a private place without consent is a criminal offense.

Catherine would also have had a very strong case under civil law in the UK, as sunbathing on a private estate clearly establishes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" but UK courts explicitly balance an individual’s privacy rights (under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) against the press's right to freedom of expression (Article 10).

So while UK courts would in all likelihood likely have sided with Catherine too, the legal process involves a subjective judicial balancing act rather than France's strict, nearly absolute, statutory protection of private life, so the results of an action are not as predictable.

So how does this explain the Duchess of Cambridge/Wales children examples, which were not published in the UK?

Sorry I am not up-to-date with this?? Pls can you give more details?

Rather, what is concerning about the current government is their apparent desire to associate with people like Hugh Grant, actively campaigning for press control.
I'm also not clear on where the idea of 'press monopoly' comes from; there are several large media groups.

What? You don’t understand the term press monopoly when three primary publishers control roughly 90% of the UK national print market, leaving the UK heavily vulnerable to the personal political agendas of a few billionaire proprietors and corporate boards?

That's not a monopoly though.

You’d prefer that Murdoch owned 10% more? 😬

Not particularly. But a monopoly is when only ONE business controls the market

Not three

The press is one of the most powerful entities of this planet. They monopolise what we see and what we hear. It doesn’t get more powerful than that. All the owners and executives across the board know each other. You won’t hear about hundreds of people dying or starving to death (which is important to many, including me) unless they choose to cover it. They mingle with the rich and powerful and that goes for the majority of press outlets. It’s the ultimate weapon of control. Sad but true

A monopoly means complete control of a product or service by one company, leaving no room for other choices or business rivals

Mono = one

not to get all Simpsons about it 🤣

I’m sorry I’m late to the discussion and I’m sure posters have already made the point ! But …. Topless photos of Catherine… pictures of the children on holiday…. Pictures of Diana in the crash ( although I’m aware they didn’t publish these , however they did take the pictures) , how is France any better than anywhere else??

I agree

William has won 2 (IIRC) privacy cases in France and of course the phone hacking case in the UK that kicked off the process that led to Leveson.

Exactly! , I’m seeing nothing that makes France some moral bastion ! 🤷‍♀️

It's not..

We see the output on a daily basis and there's certainly the equivalent of the DM strip of shame and plenty of celeb gossip/images across various outlets.

Even a well known newsreader/daytime TV show anchor wasn't able to hide her recent drugs bust for very long.