By Tony O’Reilly-
A Mail on Sunday article about Prince Harry’s legal claim against the Home Office were defamatory, a judge has said in a preliminary ruling.
The senior judge also found that the article did not suggest that Harry “was seeking to keep his ‘legal battle’ with the Government secret”, though it was suggested by the headline if read alone.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
“Read as a whole, the article was quite clear that he was seeking certain confidentiality restrictions in relation to ‘documents and witness statements’ in the proceedings, not blanket secrecy on the whole claim,” the senior judge stated.
The judge found that an ordinary reader would understand the article to mean that Harry “had initially sought confidentiality restrictions that were far-reaching and unjustifiably wide and were rightly challenged by the Home Office”
Prince Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) for libel over a February article about a dispute over his family’s security arrangements. This is the second time Prince Harry is suing the Mail On Sunday.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Law firm Schillings, represented Prince Harry’s wife, Meghan Markle in a successful 2021 High Court claim against The Mail On Sunday and its parent company Associated Newspapers over the alleged misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and a breach of the Data Protection Act.
His wife claimed to have been patient in the face of ”deception, intimidation, and calculated attacks”. She urged the public after her victory to ”be brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that profits from the lies and pain that they create”.
In this legal case, Prince William’s barrister said the story falsely suggested he had “lied” and “cynically” tried to manipulate public opinion.
ANL has disputed the claim and argued that it contained “no hint of impropriety” and was not defamatory.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “I should reiterate that the decision made in this judgment is solely concerned with the objective meaning of the article published by the defendant for the purposes of the claimant’s defamation claim.
“This is very much the first phase in a libel claim. The next step will be for the defendant to file a defence to the claim. It will be a matter for determination later in the proceedings whether the claim succeeds or fails, and if so on what basis.”
The story, published in the Mail on Sunday and online, referred to the Duke of Sussex’s separate legal case against the Home Office over security arrangements when he and his family are in the UK.
The piece was published in February under the headline: “Exclusive: 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.”
At a hearing in June, Mr Justice Nicklin was asked to determine the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the parts of the article in the claim, and whether they were defamatory.
In a written statement to last month’s preliminary hearing, Prince Harry said it had caused him “substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress, which is continuing”.
The prince’s barrister Justin Rushbrooke said the article suggested he had “lied in his initial public statements” by claiming to have always been willing to pay for police protection in the UK. The story suggested “he had only made such an offer recently, after his dispute had started and after his visit to the UK in June 2021”, Mr Rushbrooke said.
The latest libel ruling comes a day after a court heard Prince Harry faced “significant tensions” with a top aide to the Queen involved in downgrading his security.
Challenging the decision, Prince Harry’s lawyer said he had not been aware Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, played a role.
The decision was “materially prejudiced” as key information was withheld, Shaeed Fatima QC said.
The duke lost full protection after he stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s withdrawal from royal duties as well as public interviews they have given about the royal family and the press, has led to intense bitterness and tension between he press and the couple, as well as royal commentators who have taken a dislike to them.
Critics of the couple say their are many justifiable issues people have against them, and some have cited the recent bullying claims against Meghan Markle which were eventually closed down by Buckingham Palace for the sake of peace.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar