Prince Harry aides distance Duke from 'campaign to undermine High Court judge'

Thank you for subscribing!

Former investigator Graham Johnson is thought to be soliciting support to damage Mr Justice Nicklin's authority

Graham Johnson, the former tabloid journalist who led the research effort behind Prince Harry's phone-hacking lawsuit against the Daily Mail's publisher, is assembling a campaign designed to undermine the credibility of the judge who threw out the claim, according to reports.

Mr Johnson is seeking backing for an effort to damage the legal standing of Mr Justice Nicklin, who last month dismissed the £50million case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several other prominent claimants.

The Telegraph reported that it had obtained a document indicating Mr Johnson was actively soliciting support for the initiative, and that one of the Duke's aides was present at a meeting where the plans were discussed.

A source close to Prince Harry, however, told the publication that the Duke had no connection whatsoever to the proposed campaign.

The High Court ruling, delivered in July following an 11-week trial, rejected every claim put forward by the Duke and his co-claimants, a group that included Sir Elton John, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon.

Mr Justice Nicklin determined that the claimants had not substantiated their allegations of phone hacking, bugging and blagging, concluding that the evidence fell short of demonstrating that stories had been obtained through unlawful means. The judge noted that "suspicion, even where understandable, was not enough."

Mr Johnson, who ran the claimants' "legal research team," is himself a former journalist at the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World. In 2014, he received a suspended prison sentence after being convicted of phone hacking.

During the trial, Mr Justice Nicklin was sharply critical of Mr Johnson, describing him as a "guarded witness" whose testimony was "at times unconvincing" and inconsistent.

The apparent strategy behind the campaign centres on eroding the judge's authority before any potential appeal reaches the Court of Appeal.

Mr Johnson's plan would reportedly involve drawing attention to a pattern of rulings in which Mr Justice Nicklin found against parties who claimed they had been libelled.

Another likely avenue of attack would focus on the judge's earlier career as a QC, during which he acted on behalf of Mirror Group Newspapers in the significant Gulati v MGN group action. That case resulted in substantial damages being awarded to victims of phone hacking and established the benchmark for a wave of costly settlements that followed.

In a notable connection, David Sherborne, the barrister who represented Prince Harry in the Daily Mail case, acted for the victims on the opposing side of that same litigation.

Mr Johnson is also believed to be reaching out to other prominent individuals who have been on the losing end of Mr Justice Nicklin's decisions in past cases.

Among those he may approach is Mohamed Amersi, the billionaire telecommunications magnate and former Conservative Party donor, whose libel action against ex-Tory MP Charlotte Leslie was struck out by the same judge in 2023.

Mr Justice Nicklin was critical of Mr Amersi in that ruling, stating that elements of his case had been "devoid of reality."

Mr Amersi said at the time that he was "bitterly disappointed," arguing that Mr Justice Nicklin had provided "effective immunity to those who publish serious falsehoods to small but influential groups of people."

A Kazakh mining company that unsuccessfully sued journalist Tom Burgis and publisher HarperCollins, a case also dismissed by Mr Justice Nicklin in 2022, is another potential target for recruitment.

The prospect of an appeal carries considerable financial peril for the Duke and his fellow claimants, who already face a combined bill of up to £34.5million.

With the group's insurance policy capped at £16.2million, Prince Harry would likely bear a significant share of any costs exceeding that threshold.

Launching an appeal would only add to those expenses, with no assurance of a favourable outcome.

GB News has contacted the Duke of Sussex's representatives for comment.