Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 6

[bluegreygreen]

This is the sixth 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 (AW).

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, following the Consequentials hearing 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
Thread 5

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

Summary judgement

Full judgement

Yes, there are administrative fees (court charges for filing claims etc) but otherwise court services are paid by the taxpayer.

This ensures that justice is free to all who need it, but is infuriating in a scenario like this.

Sorry, 'paid out' not 'forced out'.

Of course taxpayers should pay for the system for legal redress.

And I understand why this legal case had to be allowed even though it was so weak. The accusations were so serious they needed to be heard.

But if costs are awarded on an indemnity basis because it was conducted on such a false base, perhaps there should be a way of recovering some of the court costs as well

It would be good to have a mechanism for that, @Baital.

Or perhaps criminal charges against those who pursued the case?

It is rubbish, isn't it?

In principle, I don't think people should be penalised for bringing cases that they then lose.
There are indemnity costs for out of the ordinary behaviour.

Criminal behaviour? I still wonder about the 'limitation' argument, which was found to have occurred in the background from SH's case, though he was not said to have been deceitful in it, while Evan Harris was. Whether there could be charges brought around that, I don't know. The burden of proof is higher.