London.- The British justice system ruled this Tuesday against Prince Harry and other plaintiffs, including Elton John, in the trial against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, finding that the accusations that the newspapers obtained private information through illicit means were not proven.
In addition to Harry and John, the other litigants are the singer’s husband, David Furnish; actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost; Doreen Lawrence, mother of the young Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a racist attack in London in 1993; and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes.
The seven accused ANL of obtaining personal information illicitly between 1993 and 2018 through voicemail interception, wiretapping, accessing confidential records such as medical data through deception, and hiring private investigators.
The judge denies the use of illegal methods in journalistic practices
High Court Judge Matthew Nicklin accepted in his ruling the arguments presented by the publishing group, which during the eleven-week trial, concluded on March 31, denied the use of illegal methods in its journalistic practices.
The company maintained that the articles in question were produced from legitimate sources of the journalists, including members of the close circle of those affected.
The magistrate also agreed with ANL that the claims “were filed out of time,” without the plaintiffs adequately justifying the delay.
In a statement issued after the ruling, the company noted that it “represents a resounding victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, as well as for freedom of the press in general.”
Prince Harry, who is visiting the United Kingdom, is also expected to respond to the ruling, which was released while he was attending an event in the British capital for the Invictus Games, which he founded in 2014 for Armed Forces veterans wounded in combat.
In the case of the Duke of Sussex, 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013 were examined during the trial, with details about conversations with his brother William regarding their mother, the late Princess Diana, or plans with his then-girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, which, he said, “could not have come” from any of his friends.
Paranoia “beyond what is imaginable”
In his statement to the court, he revealed that the publication of private data about his life for years caused him paranoia “beyond imagination,” although he could not sue earlier due to restrictions from the royal family.
The prince, who distanced himself from the Royal House in 2020 and lives in the United States, stated that media intrusion “has gotten worse” since he began legal action and that the media has turned the life of his wife, Meghan, into “a living hell.”
Elton John, in turn, denounced that the tabloids obtained data on the birth of his son Zachary through surrogacy, while Liz Hurley accused them of accessing her medical records during her pregnancy with her son Damian and publishing a DNA test regarding his paternity.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, David Sherborne, attempted to demonstrate a pattern of illegal conduct at ANL based on payment receipts and correspondence to third parties, but the strategy suffered a major blow when his main witness, the ‘repentant’ private investigator Gavin Burrows, denied that a 2021 statement in which he confessed to the criminal methods he had used for the newspapers was his.
Prince Harry accuses the justice system of “cover-up”
Prince Harry branded the British justice system’s decision to dismiss his lawsuit on Tuesday—along with six other celebrities, such as Elton John—against the tabloid Daily Mail for illegal information gathering as a “total and blatant cover-up.”
The High Court of England and Wales ruled today in favor of Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, considering the accusations that the newspapers obtained private information through illicit means to be unproven.
“This is a total and blatant cover-up, although unfortunately not entirely unexpected. However, the extreme measures the court has taken to exonerate the (Daily) Mail are as scandalous as they are completely unjustified,” the Duke of Sussex commented this afternoon in a joint statement with Baroness Doreen Lawrence, who was also a party to the lawsuit.
The 41-year-old younger son of Charles III asserted that today’s ruling represented a “radical shift” compared to previous lawsuits for similar cases successfully filed against other publishing groups such as those of The Times or the Daily Mirror.
“We went to court seeking justice and accountability, but we have received neither,” he added.
