A British court dismissed the suit, saying the parties failed to prove that the information was obtained illegally
Prince Harry, along with several other prominent British figures, on Tuesday lost their privacy claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail, marking a major setback in the Duke of Sussex’s long-running legal battle with the British tabloid press.The High Court in London dismissed the claims against Associated Newspapers, with Justice Matthew Nicklin ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that information published about them had been illegally obtained.Harry, along with singer Elton John, actress and model Elizabeth Hurley and others, claimed that dozens of articles published in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers between the 1990s and 2011 were based on information obtained illegally, including phone hacking and the use of private investigators.However, the Associated Press denied these allegations, describing them as baseless. Following the ruling, the publisher described the ruling as “a crushing victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.”In his ruling, Judge Nicklen said prosecutors were required to prove that the information was obtained illegally and that suspicion alone was not sufficient. “The court rejected the argument that, simply because the information was private, and because Associated could not positively explain how it was obtained, the relevant article must have been illegally obtained,” the ruling said.
Harry, who has long blamed sections of the British media for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a car crash in Paris in 1997, has brought multiple legal cases against newspaper publishers in recent years. He previously won a case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror and reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper group.During the trial in January, Harry became emotional as he described the impact of the media coverage on his family. He told the court that the Daily Mail had made his wife Meghan’s life “absolute misery” and had previously described bringing the case as his “public duty”.