Prince Harry lost a preliminary round Friday in his libel case against the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the U.K. after walking away from his role as a working member of the royal family.
Quick Read
- Prince Harry’s Libel Case Setback: Prince Harry lost a preliminary round in his libel lawsuit against the Daily Mail over an article discussing his security arrangements.
- High Court Ruling: The High Court in London ruled that the Daily Mail’s publisher could argue the story was an “honest opinion” and not libelous.
- Judge’s Comments on Public Statements: The judge suggested that public statements issued on Harry’s behalf could have been misleading, describing them as potential “spinning.”
- Scheduled Hearing Post-Ruling: A hearing is set for Tuesday to discuss the implications of this ruling.
- Context of Security Detail Controversy: The case relates to the government’s decision to provide Harry security on a case-by-case basis after he moved to the U.S. in 2020.
- Mail on Sunday’s Article Content: The article in question, published in February 2022, accused Harry of trying to keep his legal fight over security arrangements a secret.
- Harry’s Claims Against the Newspaper: Harry asserts the article falsely implied he lied about his legal challenge regarding the government’s security decision.
- Associated Newspapers’ Defense: The publisher argues the article was an expression of “honest opinion” and did not cause serious harm to Harry’s reputation.
- Government’s Stance on Security: The U.K. government maintains its decision to withdraw full protection was fair, treating Harry as it would other non-senior royal family members.
- Harry’s Ongoing Legal Battles: This libel case is one of four lawsuits Harry has filed against British tabloid publishers, alleging various unlawful practices like phone hacking and deception.
The Associated Press has the story:
Judge rules against Prince Harry in libel case against Daily Mail publisher
Newslooks- LONDON (AP)
Prince Harry lost a preliminary round Friday in his libel case against the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the U.K. after walking away from his role as a working member of the royal family.
A judge at the High Court in London ruled that Associated Newspapers Ltd. can continue to argue that the story reflected an “honest opinion” about the facts of the case and therefore was not libelous. The publisher, which is the defendant in the case, has a “real prospect” of showing that public statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading, the judge wrote in his decision.
“I anticipate that, at trial, the defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning,’” Justice Matthew Nicklin wrote. “And, the defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public.”
A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the consequences of the ruling.
The ruling comes just a day after another judge concluded three days of arguments — mostly behind closed doors — over whether the government unfairly stripped Harry of his security detail after he and his family moved to the U.S. in 2020.
Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, is challenging the government’s decision to provide security on a case-by-case basis when he and his family visit Britain. Harry has said hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless hounding by the news media threaten their safety.
The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online published an article in February 2022 about the issue headlined: “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.”
Harry claims the article was “fundamentally inaccurate” and the newspaper libeled him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements about his case challenging the government.
Associated Newspapers Ltd. argued the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not seriously harm Harry’s reputation.
Nicklin previously ruled the article was defamatory but had not considered whether the story was accurate or in the public interest.
The government, meanwhile, has defended its decision to withdraw full protection for Harry because he had stepped down from his role as a senior working member of the family. It said he was treated fairly and provided with security occasionally when he visits.
Another judge earlier this year shot down Harry’s request to privately reimburse London’s police force to guard him when he comes to Britain. A government lawyer had argued officers shouldn’t be used as “private bodyguards for the wealthy.”
The dispute with the Mail is one of four lawsuits Harry has pending against publishers of British tabloids in his ongoing battle with the press.
His three other cases allege that journalists at the Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Sun used unlawful means, such as deception, phone hacking or hiring private investigators, to try to dig up dirt about him.
