Prince Harry Loses High Court Privacy Case Against Daily Mail as Judge Rejects Every Claim

0:03 Callarogus, shark media at lower welcome through palace, intriguing, I am your host, Mark Francis, Prince Harry's latest battle with the British press has ended in his most significant court room defeat yet. The Duke of Sussex and six other high profile claimants, including Sir Elton John David Furnish, Baroness Dorrien, Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Franst and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, have lost their sweeping High Court case against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online. After an eleven week trial earlier this year, and a judgment stretching more than four hundred pages, Mister Justice Nicklin dismissed every claim. The ruling represents a sharp contrast to Harry's previous victories against other newspaper publishers. This time, the judge concluded the claimants had failed to prove that Associated Newspapers obtained information through unlawful means. The judge's reasoning is likely to become one of the most quoted passages from the case, Mister Justice Nichlin wrote, while discussing one of Prince Harry's complaints. I accept that he found the article intrusive and was genuinely concerned by how journalists appeared to no private information concerning his relationships, But suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof That sentence effectively became the theme of the entire judgment. Throughout the ruling, Mister Justice Nicklin repeatedly

1:34 acknowledged that some of the articles would naturally have caused concern for those involved, but he said concern alone could not substitute for evidence. The allegations were serious, he wrote, explaining that they therefore required particularly convincing proof. Instead, he concluded the claimants had often relied on inference. The court rejected the attempt to prove the claims by broad inference where there remained a legitimate and realistic, possible lawful source pathway. The judge also declined to make the broader finding Harry's legal team had sought that unlawful information gathering had become widespread and habitual at the Daily Mail. Instead, he examined each disputed article individually. One particularly notable example involved a two thousand and two Mail On Sunday article about television presenter Natalie Pinkin. Printerry alleged the newspaper had lawfully obtained telephone billing information showing contact between the pair. Former Royal correspondent Katie Nickel testified that the flirtation between Harry and Pinkin was widely known among their friends. She said Pinkham occasionally spoke to her off the record, and that she had several sources close to both Harry and Pinkham. One source, she testified, had sometimes been present while Harry was on the telephone and had even been shown some of his text messages. The judge accepted that explanation outright, writing I accept that evidence as to the sourcing of the article.

2:57 Another disputed story involved a twenty thirteen article suggesting Harry would spend New Year's Eve apart from then girlfriend Cresida Bonus. Harry described the reporting as creepy, saying he could not understand how the newspaper knew their separate travel plans. Again, the judge sided with the newspaper, except that he found the article intrusive. The judge wrote, but suspicion, even understandable, suspicion is not proof. Timing also played an important role in the ruling, many of the allegations stretched back twenty or even thirty years. Mister Justice Nicklin observed put shortly, memories have faded, in some cases entirely, and many documents are no longer available. The publisher wasted little time celebrating.

3:38 In a lengthy statement, Associated newspapers described the ruling as an overwhelming victory for Daily Mail and its journalists. The company added, this is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mails journalism. The reputations of our decent and hard working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated, as the judgment clearly shows every single article was legitimately sourced. The company also made clear it intends to seek recovery of its legal costs that could become the next major chapter in the story. The overall litigation is believed to have cost somewhere in the region of fifty million pounds, although exactly who will ultimately pay remains to be decided. A cost's hearing has now been scheduled for July twenty ninth and thirtieth For Prince Harry, the defeat came in particularly awkward fashion. He was not sitting inside a court room when the judgment was released. Instead, he was just two miles away at Chatham House, attending an Invictus Games event marking one year until the Birmingham Games. BBC Royal correspondent Shawn Coughlin described it as a split screen moment.

4:41 As Harry entered the room to applause, Camra was focused on the Duke, while many journalists simultaneously looked down at their phones as the judgment landed in their inboxes. Harry proceeded with his prepared remarks, making no mention of the court decision. He told the audience not simply a week of sport every few years, but a community united by one belief that the unconquered human spirit exists in every nation, and that our shared responsibility is to create the conditions in which you can flourish. The BBC reporter that Harry stuck to the script throughout his appearance, determined to keep the focus on wounded veterans rather than his legal defeat. Daniel or Ralph, the BBC's senior Royal correspondent, reported there was no expectation Harry would make an on camera response after the ruling. The telegraphs reporters inside the room offered a more personal observation. They wrote that Harry appeared visibly shaken, swallowing hard, his eyes darting around the room as he delivered a brief six minute speech. The newspaper noted that while he managed to complete his prepared remarks, the court case result was etched on his face. Legally, Harry still has options. An appeal remains possible. However, Mister Justice Nickling directed that no application for permission to appeal should be made until after the July Costs hearing more pallace in just a moment. Prince William is expected to stay out of Harry's continuing battle over security arrangements. Royal expert Jenny Bond told The Mirror Willie must surely have been paying attention to the row of a Harry's security. He could hardly avoid it, she said. I would have thought it

6:14 was one area where he might have a measure of sympathy for his brother. You know, it's just how important it is to protect your family. Like me, he might wonder why the decision is taken not to give Harry and his family security for this very short period of time. But obviously this is a decision which he cannot and would not get involved in. An unnamed source has told Vanity Fair Harry was devastated and close to tears after failing to secure the level of protection he had hoped for during the visit. He had assumed that because he was bringing the kids and the King had made a royal residence available to them, he would get what he had been pushing for all along, full time police protection. In The Express, Carol Malone wrote, if he's so frightened of a terror threat, why are he and Meghan currently holidaying in Europe at a six point three million pound Portugal engine without police protection? Do they think terrorists don't travel?

7:04 Don't understand that if someone was determined to hurt him or his family, they do it there at home in Montecito or anywhere. But they don't because no one's after Harriet's or in his head. This is all about his ego and him getting his own way, and shame on him for leveraging his children to try and get his security back. But it's worse than that. Harry's security team, which he obviously pays, have said terrorists could create a mass casualty event if Harry is targeted at the twenty twenty seven Invictus Games in the UK next year. So where's the evidence he's going to be? They claim the biggest threat is from lone actors. No terrorist plot then, who often target people who get lots of negative publicity. Yes, well, a lone actor could be anyone anywhere. It could be a nutter down the road from their home in Monticito, it could be some looney in Portugal. The fact is there are lone wolfs all over the world targeting anyone and everyone. Their targets don't even have to be famous.

7:57 The threat is all in Harry's head. He's not a prime target for terrorists because he's just not important enough. This is all because he refuses to accept he's no longer entitled to the perks of being a working royal, which he chose not to be. And there you have it. If you'd like to email us, he addresses the palasintrig at gmail dot com. Please follow us on Apple and on Spotify. You can leave us a comment and mark Francis mean. Thanks to John McDermott, this airs Palace Intrigue. Good turn,