The court rejected the notion that private information appearing in print without an explained source automatically indicated unlawful methods had been used
Prince Harry has been defeated in his £50 million privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Ltd, the company behind the Daily Mail.
Mr Justice Nicklin delivered the High Court judgment today, throwing out all allegations brought by the royal and six other prominent figures.
Sir Elton John, actress Liz Hurley and Baroness Lawrence were among those who joined Harry in accusing the publisher of illegally intercepting phone communications and obtaining confidential medical information through deception.
The judge concluded that those bringing the case had depended too heavily on "inference", stating that "suspicion, even where understandable, was not enough" to establish wrongdoing.
The court also rejected the notion that private information appearing in print without an explained source automatically indicated unlawful methods had been used.
Associated Newspapers hailed the decision as an "overwhelming victory" for press freedom, while criticising the Duke for pursuing what it described as an "egregious" case that had wasted valuable court time.
Associated Newspapers released the following statement after their victory was confirmed: “Associated Newspapers welcomes today’s judgment, 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 judgment 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 £50 million 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.”
