The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other celebrities against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full.
The case brought by the Duke of Sussex and six fellow claimants, also including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, was heard at a three-month trial at London‘s High Court at the beginning of this year.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, accepted that every article complained about was lawfully sourced.
The claim was brought against Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
In an executive summary of his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘Associated called journalist witnesses who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.
‘The Court accepted their evidence, including their denials of UIG [unlawful information gathering].
The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry (pictured today), Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other celebrities against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full
‘The allegations were serious: they included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.’
The judge said that in assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, ‘it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue. At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues.’
‘As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves.’
He added: ‘Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept. As with each of the claimants, Prince Harry has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.’
An Associated Newspapers spokesman said: ‘Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.
‘Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.
‘This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.
‘For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.
‘As we said at the time, these allegations were “lurid” and “preposterous”, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.
‘The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.
‘As the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.
‘Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs.
‘We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.’
From the moment the case began in 2022, the Daily Mail has consistently denied the accusations, for which there was never any credible evidence.
Even the claimants’ own supposed star witness, a private investigator named Gavin Burrows, told them he had never worked for the Mail, yet they ploughed ahead with the case anyway.
Prince Harry, Ms Hurley, Sir Elton, his husband David Furnish and Baroness Lawrence all launched their claims on the basis of alleged ‘admissions’ from Mr Burrows about hacking their voicemails, tapping their landlines, bugging Hugh Grant’s car and, in Ms Hurley’s case, placing a sticky microphone on her dining room window – none of which was true.
Mr Burrows said his ‘confession’ statement had been penned by Prince Harry’s legal researchers and was ‘a pack of lies’ complete with a forgery for his signature.
The fabricated statement was authenticated with a ‘certificate of compliance’ by Baroness Lawrence’s glamorous solicitor Anjlee Sangani.
She quit the case just before the trial started.
Mr Burrows said Baroness Lawrence had been ‘duped’ into joining the case by the campaigners who boasted suing newspapers was a lucrative ‘gravy train’ and the ‘perfect scam’.
When Mr Burrows came to give evidence on oath, the claimants tied themselves in knots and were reduced to calling their star witness a liar and a drunk.
The judge dismissed all the Burrows allegations.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login