Prince Harry has lost his privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The court ruled that Harry and several other high-profile claimants failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Harry joined the lawsuit in 2022 alongside singer Elton John, filmmaker David Furnish, actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence and former politician Sir Simon Hughes.

The group accused journalists of phone hacking, tapping landlines and placing listening devices in homes and cars. Associated Newspapers denied the allegations throughout the case.

Judge Criticises Parts of Case

In his judgment, Judge Nicklin said the claimants were “open to criticism” over how they presented parts of their case. He focused on allegations that Associated employees lied during the Leveson Inquiry into press practices.

“The allegations were extremely serious. Yet… they were not consistently anchored to identified statements which were put to the relevant witness as deliberate falsehoods,” Judge Nicklin wrote.

“In significant respects, the case shifted from the pleaded allegation of lies to broader criticisms of Associated’s inquiries, disclosure and corporate response to the Leveson Inquiry. This is not how allegations of this seriousness should be advanced.”

Harry’s Evidence Assessed

Judge Nicklin also reviewed Harry’s testimony.

“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…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.”

Publisher Welcomes Ruling

A spokesperson for Associated Newspapers said: “This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism. The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated. As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.”

The court will hold a separate hearing to determine costs.