By Sheila Mckenzie-
The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, has been instructed by a judge to pay more than £48,000 in damages to the Mail on Sunday, the total sum being precisely £48,447 in legal costs after his failed challenge.
Mr Justice Nicklin argued that ANL had a “real prospect” of arguing its position and that the case should go to trial. Harry must pay the newspaper by 29 December, the judge ordered
The decision follows Prince Harry’s unsuccessful attempt to strike out part of the paper’s defence in an ongoing libel case.
The royal is currently suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, over an article that delves into his legal battle with the Home Office concerning security arrangements in the UK.
The recent court ruling has added a financial setback to Prince Harry’s legal endeavors, with the judge ordering him to settle the amount by December 29.
The legal dispute arose when Prince Harry sought to challenge part of ANL’s defence, which the court rejected in March. Last week, High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in favor of ANL, allowing them to proceed with the “honest opinion” defence in the libel case.
The case relates to a February 2022 article that covered the government’s decision to withdraw taxpayer-funded security from Prince Harry after his move to the United States.
Harry is challenging the Royalty and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) decision not to grant him automatic police protection in the UK since stepping down as a senior member of the British royal family, and moving to California with his family.
His statement read: “The duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.
“That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer.”
Ravec disputed that stance in 2022 , stating that private funding “notably was not advanced” to the department, in a document prepared for a preliminary hearing of the security claim.
Mr Rushbrooke KC said it was“absolutely obvious” that Harry’s statement “makes no claim that the claimant [the duke] made an offer to Ravec or the Home Office or that his judicial review proceedings were to challenge a refusal to accept it”.
In the ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin asserted that ANL had a “real prospect” of arguing its position, concluding that the case should proceed to trial. The judge’s decision now mandates Prince Harry to pay £48,447 in legal costs to the Mail on Sunday.
Prince Harry’s legal team argued that the original article was libelous, describing it as an attack on “his honesty and integrity.”
The headline, “How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over bodyguards a secret … then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute,” was deemed by Harry’s counsel as damaging to his reputation, suggesting he had “lied” and attempted to conceal details of his legal battle.
ANL disputed the claims, arguing that the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause “serious harm” to Prince Harry’s reputation.
Andrew Caldecott KC, for ANL, said the attempt to dismiss its “honest opinion” defence without trial was “wholly without merit”, adding that Harry’s case against his client is “built on sand”.
“The claimant was responsible for press statements that said he would pay for security when he had never expressed any willingness to pay until after the judicial review.