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

Thanks @NormalAuntFanny.

Colin Campbell is the costs judge who was quoted in the Times article we discussed in the last thread (10th July), where he expected ANL to be successful in their application for costs on an indemnity basis.

I don't think he's entirely accurate in saying that 'Nicklin made no finding of dishonesty.' The judge made no finding of dishonesty against the claimants, but he certainly found Evan Harris to have been dishonest.

I think his last paragraph does give a decent summary
There will continue to be genuine — and necessary — privacy cases against the media. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 — which protects the right to private life — has not suddenly become a dead letter. But the days when wealthy individuals, lawyers and insurers are prepared to embark on vast, expensive and ambitious actions may well be numbered.

@bluegreygreen The costs are not awarded against Evan Harris though. I think the point remains that the claimants were not dishonest, and that is a consideration. He didn’t need to consider Harris - as far as I’m aware.

As if there wasn’t already enough going on, we now have this:

archive.ph/QWWyF

I want to say I can't believe it, but sadly that is not true.

I feel the same.

Graham Johnson trying to organise and solicit support for a campaign to undermine Judge Nicklin (of which Harry’s aide was present at one of these meetings) in order that they may then have a case for appeal.

It’s really low and if Harry does get involved it’s going to put KC is a very awkward position and for sure titles would be removed.

Thanks @IAmATorturedPoet.

I just saw this on X and came here to share it - you got there first!

My reaction is just a sinking feeling and 'Oh no - what now?'

There was plenty of opportunity at any point during the entire litigation process for the claimants' legal team to challenge Judge Nicklin and ask for a different Judge if they genuinely felt he wouldn't be impartial.

I don't think this is likely to go anywhere, given all the documented warnings to the claimants during the pre-trial hearings, and the very detailed judgement, but it has the potential to drag on and be unpleasant.

I also find it interesting that it is described as GJ's campaign - where is DS?

The aim of the campaign is to weaken Mr Justice Nicklin’s legal authority in the hope that this will boost the chances of having his judgment overturned in the Court of Appeal.
It would involve highlighting the judge’s previous rulings in cases in which he found against those claiming to have been libelled.
It would also probably highlight the judge’s previous life as a QC, when he represented Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) ...
Mr Johnson is believed to be planning to approach other high-profile figures whom Mr Justice Nicklin has ruled against in previous cases, to see whether they would be willing to assist.

Just rereading - the idea is to try to undermine Judge Nicklin and make an appeal potentially more successful.

First - I don't think they'll be given leave to appeal.

Secondly - is he asking these people to give statements for court? How else would they assist?

Thirdly - if Harry's 'aide' (who?) has been at the meetings, I don't think he can say he has 'nothing to do with the proposed campaign'.

I really can’t see this having legs, it’s a really bad idea.

I did wonder if it could be an indication that all is not well on the insurance front 🤷‍♀️

Where is DS? I expect even he isn’t touching this 😁

Apologies blue! …what the actual fuck??? , really? , are they all insane? , stupid? Or just trouble making assholes!