Prince Harry has suffered a significant legal setback after the High Court in London dismissed his long-running privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, and MailOnline. The ruling marks the conclusion of one of the final major legal battles connected to allegations of unlawful newsgathering practices that emerged during Britain’s phone-hacking era.
The Duke of Sussex was among seven high-profile claimants who accused ANL of illegally obtaining private information through methods including phone hacking, surveillance, deceptive information gathering, and the use of private investigators. Joining Harry in the lawsuit were singer Sir Elton John, filmmaker David Furnish, actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes.
The claimants alleged that Associated Newspapers had engaged in a “systematic and sustained” campaign of unlawful information gathering between 1997 and 2015. Their allegations included phone hacking, bugging homes and vehicles, tapping landlines, making corrupt payments to police officers, obtaining confidential records through deception, and employing private investigators to gather sensitive personal information. However, ANL consistently denied the accusations, maintaining that its reports were sourced through legitimate journalistic practices, including interviews, public records, press officers, and contacts close to the claimants.
In his detailed 436-page judgment, Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the serious allegations. The judge emphasized that suspicion alone could not establish unlawful conduct and that each claim required independent and compelling proof. Referring to one of Prince Harry’s complaints about a 2013 Daily Mail article concerning his relationship with former girlfriend Cressida Bonas, the judge acknowledged Harry’s concerns but concluded that “suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof.”
A key factor in the court’s decision was the collapse of evidence from private investigator Gavin Burrows, who had initially been presented as an important witness. Burrows later distanced himself from a witness statement attributed to him, claiming it had been forged and denying that he had carried out illegal work for the Daily Mail. Justice Nicklin stated that Burrows’ credibility had been “comprehensively undermined” and found no independent evidence supporting his claims.
Following the judgment, Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence expressed disappointment, saying they had sought justice and accountability but received neither. In a joint statement, they described the verdict as “a complete and obvious whitewash,” questioning whether justice could ever be achieved without stronger evidence being accepted by the courts.
Associated Newspapers welcomed the ruling, calling it an “overwhelming victory” and a complete vindication of its journalism. The publisher stated that the judgment cleared the reputations of its journalists, arguing that every disputed article had been lawfully sourced. Editor-in-chief Paul Dacre also defended the publication, describing the case as an unnecessary legal battle and announcing that ANL intends to recover legal costs, which it claims have exceeded £50 million.
Despite this defeat, Prince Harry has secured legal victories against other British newspaper groups in recent years. In 2023, he won parts of his case against Mirror Group Newspapers, where the court found evidence of unlawful phone hacking. More recently, News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun, agreed to pay substantial damages and issued a public apology while settling Harry’s privacy claims related to alleged unlawful information gathering.