When Prince Harry and others accused the Daily Mail of using illegal methods to obtain stories, the world was shocked. The Duke of Sussex – alongside Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence; Singer Elton John and his husband, David Furnish; Actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost. Former Liberal Democrat minister Simon Hughes has launched a multi-million pound case against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline newspapers.The six parties accused the publisher of “clear, systematic and persistent use of illegal information gathering” over several years. They alleged that the newspaper placed eavesdropping devices in people’s cars and homes, listened to calls made, illegally entered people’s bank accounts and made corrupt payments to the police. Dozens of journalists and private investigators have been named in the claims.The group presented to the court 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015, and three incidents that did not lead to the writing of articles, which they claimed showed illegal information gathering in 97 separate allegations.The trial began in January at the High Court in London. In court, Harry became visibly emotional as he described his confrontation with Associated Newspapers, saying: “They keep coming after me. They’ve made my wife’s life absolutely miserable.”While the plaintiffs had previously been eyeing a victory, the judge’s ruling now has them looking at a £50 million legal bill. In a ruling that likely signals the end of new lawsuits related to the era of the phone-hacking scandal, the Supreme Court rejected all of the group’s claims.
He stated that the claimants had not proven that any information had been illegally obtained.The 436-page written ruling from Judge Nicklen said that a court could not simply conclude that a story was obtained illegally if there remained a legitimate and realistic legal way by which it could have been obtained from its source. Nicklin also rejected suggestions that senior figures at the Mail, including its former editor Paul Ducker, lied in the 2011-12 Leveson inquiry into journalism ethics, with Ducker saying no hack had occurred at the newspaper.Harry and Lawrence said the ruling was a “complete and clear vindication, but unfortunately not entirely unexpected”. “When the court says there is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing…then one wonders how justice will ever be served,” a joint statement said.While ANL’s legal team described the allegations as “outrageous” and “preposterous”. In each case, she said, the stories were legitimately obtained from press officials, past articles or the celebrities’ “leaky” social circles.
Dacre further claimed that the case was a “conspiracy” hatched by press organizing activists to “destroy the newspaper”. He said he would “never be able to understand” why Lawrence joined the case, after the Mail had “campaigned for justice for her son for more than two decades”.
“He also said he sympathized with Harry, whom he described as a “confused and angry young man.” He said his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, “liked the mail.
We were her card.”The publishers expressed their gratitude for the judge’s ruling and “for the patience and wisdom he showed throughout this misguided legal proceeding which wasted much of the court’s valuable time and more than £50 million in legal costs.”Total costs will be determined at a hearing this month, and a judge could decide that claimants are responsible for paying all expenses.
