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 think it’s indicative of how he thinks that using bully boy tactics will get him what he wants.

Exactly.

When the guardian spells it out for you- shows you just how bad it really is

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/12/prince-harry-and-professional-liar-battle-daily-mail

@MauveLibrary Many commentators think he won’t cap the fees. He can take into account that they would not settle and have been somewhat unreasonable. He’s already acknowledged higher fees were likely and the length of the trial meant they were definitely racking up.

‘No one was off limits: even journalists covering the case. On the first day of the trial, Harry’s PR man swaggered up to me to tell me Harry didn’t like the tone of one of my pieces (I had suggested the prince might be a liar).’

‘Who is Harry to enforce what is acceptable to think and what isn’t? He doesn’t even live here.
If his team had time to try and bully me, what would they do to other, more vulnerable people? The emotional, weak celebs he lured into this case. Or Doreen Lawrence: what does her life look like, now that a share of the £50 million legal bill is hanging over her head?’

Brilliant piece.

Wow. I copied and pasted so many lines to share as it was so good but these are the lines I want to highlight

On the first day of the trial, Harry’s PR man swaggered up to me to tell me Harry didn’t like the tone of one of my pieces (I had suggested the prince might be a liar)

Who is Harry to enforce what is acceptable to think and what isn’t? He doesn’t even live here.
If his team had time to try and bully me, what would they do to other, more vulnerable people? The emotional, weak celebs he lured into this case. Or Doreen Lawrence: what does her life look like, now that a share of the £50 million legal bill is hanging over her head

I don't understand the take into account they would not settle?

Why would they be punished for refusing to admit to something that they hadn't done?

They claimants were looking for a big pay day - a settlement would have meant ANL admitting responsibility and paying compensation.

😂 😂

Both you and I thought that was the money piece - so worth sharing a third time.

I’m not sure if it applies here, but the money spent by ANL on getting the info together for the lawyers is also huge. That was at great cost to them too. I’m not sure if those costs are recoverable? Maybe by a separate action? I’ve enjoyed the linked articles - so thanks for them.

I’m the same. Following avidly.

That sounds exactly as I would imagine Liam Maguire to act,

“Harry’s PR man swaggered up to me to tell me Harry didn’t like the tone of one of my pieces “.

This is fascinating, they got funding from James Stunt, the druggie and lying ex son in law of billionaire Bernie Ecclestone.

Johnson sourced funding from the families of the late privacy campaigner Max Mosley and the playboy and self-described billionaire James Stunt, frequently the subject of Mail investigations owing to the opaque source of his supposed wealth.

A bully and a narcissist …. would add in misogynist - I wonder if he harangued the male reporters - we have seen him on film insulting and dismissing female reporters before.

Thank you - that is such a good read.

there are more people in power who wish to obstruct the truth, and they will go to any lengths to do this, even smear an entire trade as grifters peddling “fake news”, while using their own lies to advance their own false narratives.

And the story of Harry's PR man trying to bully her ties in with what Sophie Chandauka pointed out before.

Thanks for posting the Guardian piece here too @AtIusvue.

Archive link here https://archive.is/gCcP8

As I said on the PR thread, the article is generally good but is itself misleading.

Although Nicklin did not assert that Johnson and Harris had set out to mislead the court, he noted inconsistencies in their evidence and ruled that it should be approached with caution. Harry and the other claimants may be entitled to wonder why they were trusted with the bungled attempt to bring Fleet Street’s biggest beast to heel.

Judge Nicklin specifically censured Harris in his judgement, calling him dishonest in regard to his proposal to use Bylines to obscure the timeline when the claimants knew of a potential claim.

I am satisfied that, in this limited but important respect, Dr Harris’ proposal was dishonest. It involved proposing that publication in Byline should be used to present a later public point of knowledge as the operative basis for the claim, when the relevant facts had already been available, or were at least capable of being obtained, earlier. At root, that proposal involved a deception. The finding concerns the proposal recorded in his email of 11 July 2019.
... In that particular respect, and for the reasons there given, I find that his proposal was improper and dishonest.

I wonder how many journalists have stories
(a) of Harry accidentally or deliberately leaking information to them
or
(b) of Harry or his PR team trying to bully them?

And how many of these stories are we now going to hear?

He really is a bully.
We also have the example taken from RAVEC court documents that state PH demanded "I would like that person's name" when trying to find out who was responsible for downgrading his police protection.

I'm sure the media are sitting on a lot of stories and I hope this latest court case sees a Pandora's box being opened on this horrible man..

How wealthy is a self-described billionaire ?

As wealthy as he wants to be?

I would think it quite reasonable for ANL to want to claim costs on the basis that the claimants case was wholly lacking in evidence and should not have been allowed to proceed.

I very much hope that is what happens. I saw earlier in the week several mentions of the claimants trying to settle before the case started, and wondered if the judge might see that as reducing the responsibility of the claimants for the ensuing shit show, but there's an article in the Times today that says they only offered to drop their claim in return for substantial amounts of money. And later apparently DL and her solicitor Imran Khan offered to completely withdraw her claims and make a statement saying she had been convinced there was no wrongdoing on the part of ANL but only if she was given £650000.

And to me, that doesn't just not make the claimants look better, it makes it crystal clear that it was all a cynical attempt at a shakedown. Actually, I would suggest it might meet the definition of "making demands with menaces", aka blackmail. But IANAL!

On the first day of the trial, Harry’s PR man swaggered up to me to tell me Harry didn’t like the tone of one of my pieces (I had suggested the prince might be a liar)

And this is exactly the kind of world Hackoff have been working incredibly hard to bring about. Their campaign isn't a noble struggle against unlawful press intrusion, it's a group of very wealthy celebrities and ex-politicians who want to gag the press and shut down the media's ability to scrutinise the behaviour of the rich and influential.

Wow that is blackmail...in that case I hope the judge allows ANL to claim back every penny. This was nothing more than an attempt to extract a huge settlement from ANL and it has massively backfired.

Every one of the claimants should now be absolutely quaking in their boots because uncapped costs could well run into millions and the claimants are woefully underinsured, and if the insurers decide to now decline the claim because of clearly evidenced perjury that makes it even worse.

Exactly. Harry is not a moral crusader, but a royal Prince with time and money and buckets of resentment. He's not representing anything other than royal privilege, arrogance and greed. He objects because he only wants positive publicity. He's an ultra royal.

Hes a repulsive arrogant vile little brat and I hope he is forced into paying an eye watering sum of money for the costs he and the other claimants forced ANL to incur in defending themselves

In a nutshell!