Prince Harry and six other household names have lost their legal battle against the Daily Mail publisher, after accusing the newspaper of illegally intercepting their voicemails.
A judge ruled that the group had “failed to prove their pleaded allegations of unlawful information gathering” at Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
During the 11-week trial at the High Court earlier this year, a tearful Duke of Sussex said that ANL had “made my wife’s life an absolute misery” and recounted intrusions on the private life of his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy by members of the newspaper group.
He was joined by Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes in accusing the publisher of landline tapping and obtaining information by deception – also known as “blagging”, carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and ANL staff.
ANL strongly denied the claims and defended the case, saying it had “established a complete defence to all parts of the claims on the merits” and that the cases were brought too late.
The publisher has said that the High Court ruling is an “overwhelming victory” and a “magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.
ANL added: “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.”
In his 436-page judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin says he accepted the denials of ANL journalists “who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.”
He added that the claimants had failed to prove that three senior figures at the publisher, including former editors Paul Dacre and Peter Wright, had lied in their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.
The verdict comes after it was announced on Monday that the duke will not stay at Buckingham Palace during his return to the UK this week, as the accommodation arrangements for his trip descended into chaos.
A spokesperson for Harry said it was “disappointing” the offer from the King had been “withdrawn at the last moment”, with the looming judgment in the duke’s case against ANL given as the reason.
During around two hours of cross-examination in the trial against ANL in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.
He repeatedly denied having “leaky” social circles and added that if he became suspicious of someone, “I would have to cut contact with this person”.
Around 40 former and current Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists, editors and executives took to the witness stand, with two royal reporters claiming that they had developed sources within the prince’s inner circle.
The duke also claimed it was “beyond cruel” to publish an article about “confidential discussions” he had after a photo of a dying Princess Diana was published in the Italian press.
He insisted that intimate details about his relationship with Ms Davy, including a conversation around a campfire with friends in Botswana, had been uncovered through listening to his communications and voicemail interception.
Meanwhile, Lady Lawrence claimed the Daily Mail was “pretending” to support her in getting justice for her son Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993.
Her lawyers claim she was “extensively targeted” by private investigators to obtain information, including through corrupt payments to police.
Sir Elton and Mr Furnish alleged 10 articles about them were based on unlawful information gathering, including unlawfully obtained medical information and landline tapping.
The couple claimed their son Zachary’s birth certificate was stolen before they received a copy, with the “Rocketman” singer telling the court their case “contains the most horrendous things in the world that you can ever suffer from a privacy point of view”.
Part of Ms Frost’s claim related to an unpublished article about a 2003 ectopic pregnancy, which Frost said she only told her partner and “maybe also one of her very close friends”.
The group’s barrister, David Sherborne, said an ANL journalist found out details about the pregnancy and subsequent termination which “must be from unlawful information gathering”.
Former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre said in his written evidence it was “inconceivable” that anyone at the paper would have carried out the alleged activities.
He later said the claims had had a “deeply upsetting” and sometimes “traumatic” impact on staff at the paper, adding: “I have witnessed the anguish of honest, dedicated journalists who, for three years now, have had an insidious dark shadow hanging over their lives.”
The trial also heard arguments over whether the cases were brought in time as the law states that legal action related to unlawful information-gathering must be launched within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.
