Prince Harry seeks libel claim against Mail on Sunday publisher
Duke of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Limited over an article about his separate High Court claim regarding his UK security arrangements
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The latest hearing in the Duke of Sussex’s libel claim against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday over an article about the duke’s challenge against the Home Office over security arrangements is due to take place at the High Court.
Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article about his separate High Court claim regarding security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK. ANL is contesting the claim.
The story was published in February 2022 under the headline: “Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute”.
A preliminary hearing in the libel case is now due to take place at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Friday.
It comes after the libel claim was temporarily paused in December last year to see if a settlement could be reached between the duke and the publisher.
Judge Barbara Fontaine was previously told Harry and ANL had agreed to continue efforts to reach a settlement, but that if no settlement was agreed, the duke would ask the court to either strike out ANL’s defence or give summary judgment in his favour, avoiding the need for a trial.
Last July, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in Harry’s favour on the first stage of the claim, relating to the “objective meaning” of the article.
The judge found the article was defamatory, saying a normal reader would understand from the article that Harry “was responsible for public statements, issued on his behalf, which claimed that he was willing to pay for police protection in the UK, and that his legal challenge was to the government’s refusal to permit him to do so, whereas the true position, as revealed in documents filed in the legal proceedings, was that he had only made the offer to pay after the proceedings had commenced”.
Harry is bringing separate proceedings against the Home Office after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting from the US, despite offering to pay for it himself.
Last year the duke was given the go-ahead for a full hearing in his challenge against a decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the remit of the Home Office.
No date has yet been set for that hearing.