Prince Harry Loses $67 Million Lawsuit as His Trip Back to London Takes Another Turn for the Worse

The dismissal of Prince Harry’s $67 million lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail for phone hacking and other invasions of privacy is yet another setback for the prodigal prince in his return to the realm ruled by his father. The prince’s suit, which was joined by other celebrities, alleges unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers between 1993 and 2011. The case, which included a two month trial, cost some $53.5 million to litigate. The suit centered on more than a dozen articles that delved into the prince’s relationship with his ex-girlfriends as well as assorted matters relating to his mother, Princess Diana. Alongside the Duke of Sussex the other claimants included Elton John and his husband, David Furnish and actress Liz Hurley. In January, Prince Harry testified with respect to the journalists pursuing him that “they continue to come after me, they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery.” The prince won damages against the Mirror Group in 2023 and settled with Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers for a “substantial sum” last year. The presiding judge, Justice Matthew Nicklin of the English High Court, writes in his ruling that Prince Harry and his fellow claimants alleged the “use of private investigators, ‘blagging’ — obtaining information by deception — phone hacking and/or corrupt payments.” The claimants, he reckoned, failed to meet their burden of proof. Justice Nicklin noted that while civil cases are usually decided based on the “balance of probabilities” the allegations here “were serious: They included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct, and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.”Justice Nicklin wrote that “suspicion, even where understandable, was not enough,” to hand Prince Harry a victory because he “had to prove that the information complained of had been obtained unlawfully.” The judge writes that “rejected the argument that, simply because information was private, and because Associated could not positively explain how it had been sourced, the relevant article must have been unlawfully sourced.”The judge also wrote that “in assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, it was apparent that he wished the Court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue. At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issue.” While Justice Nicklin found the royal to be broadly credible, he concluded that the prince had “limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.” The “journalist witnesses,” Justice Nicklin wrote, explained to his satisfaction that a “legitimate and realistic possible lawful source pathway” existed for the scoops they generated about the Duke of Sussex. Prince Harry had accused dozens of journalists and private investigators of “clear, systematic, and sustained use of unlawful information gathering.” Associated Newspapers declared in a statement after the verdict that “this is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism. For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago — placing bugs in people’s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made, and illicitly accessing bank accounts — no credible evidence was ever presented.”For Prince Harry the courtroom defeat comes just a day after the Crown informed him that he could not stay at Buckingham Palace during his return to England. The Crown explained in a statement that the prince had not given sufficient notice of his intent to spend the night at the 755-room pile. The Duke of Sussex’s team insisted that the offer to stay had been “withdrawn” in a decision they described as “disappointing.”Prince Harry’s wife, the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, and their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet did not join the trip after initially planning to travel with the duke. Prince Harry’s decision to leave them behind was reportedly motivated by security concerns. He and his family lost the Crown’s automatic protection when they ceased serving as “working royals” in 2020. The prince’s return to England was ostensibly motivated by a set of charity commitments, including one to raise awareness for the Invictus Games. Some in the British press speculated that the king’s reluctance to offer his son a place to stay was informed by the worry that he would use the palace as a backdrop in the event that his lawsuit prospered.The prince has not yet issued a statement on the outcome.

Prince Harry Loses $67 Million Lawsuit as His Trip Back to London Takes Another Turn for the Worse

More from the New York Sun

It’s Time To Cut the Capital Gains Tax

Could Marine Le Pen, Cleared To Run for President, Be Preparing To Cede the Race?

New York Times Under Fire for Failing To Corroborate Allegations Against Platner

More from the New York Sun

It’s Time To Cut the Capital Gains Tax

Could Marine Le Pen, Cleared To Run for President, Be Preparing To Cede the Race?

New York Times Under Fire for Failing To Corroborate Allegations Against Platner

Maine Democrats Scramble for New Senate Nominee as Platner Is Mum on Plans

The Danger in Arming Erdogan’s Turkey

Infantino’s Role as FIFA Leader Jeopardized By Trump-Balogun Fiasco

The Poll That Explains the Platner Debacle

Half of Americans Struggle To Pay for Gas and Groceries, Poll