Prince Harry wins latest stage of Mail on Sunday defamation case
Harry is suing publisher over story on UK police protection legal case
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.A Mail on Sunday article on the Duke of Sussex’s legal claim against the Home Office contained parts that were defamatory, the High Court has ruled.
The judgement marks a victory for Harry in the first stage of his latest libel claim against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday’s publisher over a story on a separate High Court case over the decision to remove his automatic granting of police protection in the UK.
The February article carried 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.”
Lawyers for Harry had argued the article was defamatory and suggested the duke had “improperly and cynically” tried to manipulate public opinion.
A judge ruled parts of the article were defamatory on Friday.
This judgment only relates to the “objective meaning” of the article and is the first stage in the libel claim, Mr Justice Nicklin said.
Discussing one of the meanings, he said a reader would think Harry “was responsible for public statements” issued on his behalf that “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”.
The judge added: “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.”
He also said the article would have been read as alleging Harry “was responsible for trying to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling ‘misinformation”’.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “It may be possible to ‘spin’ facts in a way that does not mislead, but the allegation being made in the article was very much that the object was to mislead the public.
“That supplies the necessary element to make the meanings defamatory at common law.”
The senior judge also found the article did not suggest that Harry was trying to get “blanket secrecy” over his Home Office claim - although this was suggested by the headline if read alone.
Instead, it explained he was “seeking certain confidentiality restrictions” over documents and witness statements, according to the judge.
It is not the first time Harry has been locked in a legal battle with ANL, having previously sued it over two which claimed he had snubbed the Royal Marines after stepping down as a senior royal. He accepted an apology and damages in this libel suit.
His wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, won a front-page apology and payout from the Mail on Sunday publishers last year after her copyright win against the group.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments