Harry’s case against Mail ‘should never have been brought to trial’, says Dacre

Prince Harry‘s and others claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher over allegations of unlawful information gathering “should never have been brought to trial”, editor Paul Dacre has said.

A group of household names, also including Doreen Lawrence, Elton John and David Furnish, alleged acts including voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception, also known as “blagging”, were carried out by private investigators, freelance journalists and staff at Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

ANL strongly denied the claims as it defended the cases, which it also said had been brought too late.

In a decision on Tuesday, judge Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all of the claims, ruling that none of the group of seven had proven the allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Following the judgment, ANL’s editor in chief Dacre described the ruling as “a momentous victory for the Mail” and “an overwhelming vindication of our journalism”.

Under Mr Dacre’s editorship, the Daily Mail campaigned to bring the killers of Lawrence’s son Stephen to justice after he was murdered in 1993.

He said in his statement that Lawrence’s father Neville “says he owes the Mail everything”, adding: “Why Baroness Lawrence – for whom we have always had profound respect and sympathy – chose to turn on both the paper, and the brilliant reporter who campaigned for justice for her son for over two decades, is something I will never be able to comprehend.”

Dacre later said: “The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial.

“That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession.”

Discussing Harry, Dacre said there was not “a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family”, and that he feels “sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case”.

Dacre later described the legal action as a “conspiracy” to destroy a paper, “financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley”.

In the 436-page ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that it was up to the group of claimants to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering.

He said: “Whilst the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, the more serious, and inherently less probable, the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to prove it.”

The judge said he had accepted that the cases of the group of household names often relied on inferences, given the nature and age of the allegations, but said in reference to some of the articles in the case that “suspicion is not enough”.

Mr Justice Nicklin also said: “In substance, the claimants’ case invites the court to conclude that, because the information was private and because Associated cannot positively explain how it was sourced, the article must have been unlawfully sourced.

“That is not a permissible approach.”

Dozens of people gave evidence during the trial in London, including Harry, the rest of the group of household names, also including Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, as well as many current or former ANL journalists and executives.

During around two hours of cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.

Mr Justice Nicklin said it was clear Harry “wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue” during his evidence in January, but “this did not affect the quality” of the duke’s evidence, which the judge accepted.

As part of its defence, ANL said that Daily Mail and Mail On Sunday journalists provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles”, including friends and “leaky” social circles, press officers and spokespersons, as well as previous reporting, freelance journalists and stories from other newspapers and news agencies.

The trial also heard arguments over whether the cases were brought in time as the law states that legal action related to unlawful information-gathering must be launched within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.

Mr Justice Nicklin said that even if unlawful information gathering had been proven, Sir Simon and Ms Frost’s claims had been brought too late.

The decision comes after Harry returned to the UK on Monday evening ahead of five days of appearances in London and Birmingham, including marking the one-year countdown to the 2027 Invictus Games.

Harry will not stay at Buckingham Palace during his return, with his spokesman saying on Monday that it was “disappointing” the offer from King Charles had been “withdrawn at the last moment”, with the looming judgment given as the reason.

A further hearing in the claims is now expected to take place, lasting two days from July 29th.