Prince Harry and Elton John lose their case: British court rejects their legal challenge against the Daily Mail

Prince Harry, Elton John, and several other plaintiffs have lost their case against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. The High Court in London dismissed all of their claims, following proceedings centered on allegations of unlawful information gathering, invasion of privacy, and the alleged use of illicit methods by journalists or private investigators.

The Duke of Sussex, Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, Doreen Lawrence, David Furnish, and Simon Hughes accused the media group of obtaining their personal information through prohibited means. The plaintiffs specifically targeted articles published over a long period, from the 1990s to the 2010s, and claimed that some of the information could only have been obtained through illegal methods.

The judge believes the evidence is insufficient.

Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their allegations. He rejected the argument that unlawful data collection had occurred simply because some information was private or because the newspaper could not precisely explain the origin of each item published. In his decision, he wrote: "In essence, the plaintiffs' case invites the Court to conclude that, because the information was private and because Associated cannot positively explain how it was obtained, the article was necessarily illegally supplied. This is not an admissible approach."

The British courts therefore ruled that, for several of the contested articles, there was a realistic possibility that the information came from legitimate sources. The newspapers had argued that their articles were based on legal sources, including relatives, palace staff, press officers, or people in contact with the individuals concerned.

Serious accusations against the press group

The plaintiffs accused Associated Newspapers of using practices such as intercepting voicemails, hacking phones, tapping landlines, deceiving people to obtain confidential information, and employing private investigators. They claimed that these practices had been used to generate articles about their personal, family, or medical lives.

Associated Newspapers has always denied these accusations. The group called the allegations grossly unfounded and defended the legality of its journalists' work. Tuesday's ruling vindicates it legally, as the claims were dismissed in their entirety.Reuters)

Harry denounces an unfair decision

Prince Harry did not accept the ruling. In a joint statement with Doreen Lawrence, he denounced a decision he considers deeply unjust. His reaction was direct: "It's a complete and obvious whitewash, but unfortunately not entirely unexpected." He adds that the court's efforts to exonerate the Mail would, in his opinion, "as shocking as they are totally unjustified".

This defeat contrasts sharply with other legal actions taken by the Duke of Sussex against the British press. He had previously won a case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror in a phone hacking case, and then reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch's media group in another case related to invasions of his privacy. This time, the High Court ruled that the standard of proof had not been met.

A potentially very heavy legal bill

The trial lasted eleven weeks, and legal costs could become a central issue. Associated Newspapers estimates the total cost of the case at over £50 million and intends to seek reimbursement of its expenses. A hearing is still to be held to resolve the remaining questions following the judgment, including the financial consequences of the decision.

For Prince Harry, Elton John, and the other plaintiffs, the defeat is twofold: their accusations were dismissed, and they could face substantial legal costs. The legal case against the Daily Mail publisher has, for now, come to a close with the rejection of their claims.