double quotation markAssociated Newspapers welcomes today\u2019s judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists\u2019 evidence on how they sourced their stories.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail\u2019s journalism.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people\u2019s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs we said at the time, these allegations were \u2018lurid\u2019 and \u2018preposterous\u2019, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.<\/p>\n
\u201cAssociated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than \u00a350m in legal costs.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.<\/p>\n
Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.43 EDT<\/p>\n Key events<\/p>\n Hacked Off, a group which has long campaigned for tighter regulation of the British media, has reacted to today\u2019s high court judgment. Hacked Off board director and phone hacking victim Jacqui Hames said:<\/p>\n double quotation markThe stories and conduct which formed the basis for the claims against the Mail were devastatingly intrusive, and included medical details, information about children, and other deeply invasive behaviour and coverage.<\/p>\n The Mail\u2019s conduct fell well short of professional standards in the press, yet nothing has changed in the last twenty years and news publishers like the Mail still remain outside any independent form of regulation. Action to address standards in the press is long overdue, and must be a priority for the incoming administration.<\/p>\n The courts are not the appropriate vehicle for investigating the allegations of wrongdoing against the Mail in their fulness, and the judgment was clear in stating that, focusing on a handful of individual articles, the court had not made findings on whether illegality was widespread at the Mail.<\/p>\n Now only a public inquiry can get to the bottom of what really happened.<\/p>\n Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, has consistently denied any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Commenting on the overall evidence prince Harry gave during the trial in January, Mr Justice Nicklin said in his judgment:<\/p>\n double quotation markIn assessing Prince Harry\u2019s evidence overall, it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue.<\/p>\n At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues, and exchanges followed with Mr White KC (Antony White KC, for Associated) in that vein.<\/p>\n As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves.<\/p>\n However, when giving evidence, that is not a burden they are required to carry. The responsibility for advancing the party\u2019s case rests with the advocate.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Prince Harry hasn\u2019t given a reaction to today\u2019s judgment yet.<\/p>\n As we reported earlier in the blog<\/a>, he arrived at an event for the Invictus Games in London\u2019s Chatham House shortly before the judgment was published this afternoon.<\/p>\n Prince Harry arrives at Chatham House in central London on 7 July, 2026. Photograph: Justin Tallis\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n According to Sky News, he has been speaking since the judgment was published but has not mentioned the ruling, sticking to his pre-prepared script.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat brings us together is far more important than what sets us apart,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cEach country represented here is writing its own chapter\u201d.<\/p>\n The event is bringing together members of the Invictus community, leading experts and policymakers to discuss issues affecting injured and sick service personnel and veterans \u2013 all those eligible to take part in the paralympic-style games.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Judge said claimants could not rely on ‘suspicion’ to prove allegations<\/p>\n In the judgment<\/a>, Mr Justice Nicklin acknowledged that the allegations were \u201cserious\u201d, noting that they included claims of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence.<\/p>\n Because they were civil (not criminal) claims being brought against Associated Newspapers<\/a> Limited, he explained that the legal test was whether the allegations were proved on a balance of probabilities.<\/p>\n \u201cThe more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved,\u201d he wrote, noting in the summary that the claimants could not rely on \u201csuspicion, even where understandable\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe claimants had to prove that the information complained of had been obtained unlawfully. The court rejected the argument that, simply because information was private, and because Associated could not positively explain how it had been sourced, the relevant article must have been unlawfully sourced,\u201d the judgment read.<\/p>\n Share<\/a> In a ruling that is likely to signal an end to new litigation relating to the phone-hacking scandal, the high court dismissed all the claims, stating the claimants had not proved information had been obtained unlawfully.<\/p>\n The written verdict from Mr Justice Nicklin said the court could not simply infer a story had been obtained unlawfully if there was a legitimate and realistic legal way in which they could have been sourced.<\/p>\n You can read more on the significance of the ruling from the Guardian\u2019s media editor, Michael Savage<\/a>, here:<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n In the summary, the judge said that a hearing will now take place on 29\u201330 July to hear arguments on \u201cany points of dispute as to the consequential orders to be made\u201d following today\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n The verdict potentially leaves the claimants with a huge bill for the case, which is thought to be as much as \u00a350m.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a010.30 EDT<\/p>\n High court ruling ‘magnificent vindication’ of the Daily Mail\u2019s journalism, publisher claims<\/p>\n We are getting a statement through from the Associated Newspapers<\/a> Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, which celebrates the judgment ruling in its favour and says it will seek to recover costs. The statement, attributed to a spokesperson, reads:<\/p>\n double quotation markAssociated Newspapers welcomes today\u2019s judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally.<\/p>\n \u201cMr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists\u2019 evidence on how they sourced their stories.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail\u2019s journalism.<\/p>\n \u201cFor some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people\u2019s cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts – no credible evidence was ever presented.<\/p>\n \u201cAs we said at the time, these allegations were \u2018lurid\u2019 and \u2018preposterous\u2019, and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press.<\/p>\n \u201cThe reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated.<\/p>\n \u201cAs the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.<\/p>\n \u201cAssociated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than \u00a350m in legal costs.<\/p>\n \u201cWe will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.43 EDT<\/p>\n In his 436-page written judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering (UIG).<\/p>\n As a reminder, the claimants were Prince Harry<\/a>, Elton John and husband David Furnish, actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes. The judge wrote in his summary:<\/p>\n double quotation markThe court rejected the attempt to prove the claims by broad inference where there remained a legitimate and realistic possible lawful source pathway, or where the article-specific evidence did not prove that the relevant information must have been obtained unlawfully\u2026<\/p>\n The court also held that the parties were bound by the cases they had pleaded. It was not permissible, at trial, to replace a pleaded allegation with a different, and in many instances more serious, allegation of UIG\u2026 The claims are therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n Claimants included clockwise from top left; Doreen Lawrence, Prince Harry, Elton John, Liz Hurley, David Furnish, Sadie Frost. Composite: James Manning\/PA\/Brook Mitchell\/AFP\/Aaron Chown\/PA\/Jordan Pettitt\/Victoria Jones\/PA\/James Veysey\/ShutterstockShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a010.33 EDT<\/p>\n Prince Harry and claimants lose case against Daily Mail publisher<\/p>\n Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants have lost their claim against Associated Newspapers Limited, the Daily Mail publisher. The written judgment is here<\/a>. We are just combing through it to give you some of the key lines\u2026<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.37 EDT<\/p>\n The high court judgment is expected shortly. There is no court hearing but a written judgment will be published online by Mr Justice Nicklin instead. Stay with us as we bring you the latest.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.19 EDT<\/p>\n Prince Harry has arrived at Chatham House for the first in a series of week-long events celebrating his Invictus Games and ahead of an imminent court ruling.<\/p>\n Harry looked business-like as he stepped from his vehicle at around 1.15pm ahead of the highly-anticipated judgement in his High Court case against the Daily Mail\u2019s publisher expected shortly on Tuesday afternoon.<\/p>\n Scores of photographers and media gathered outside and shouted \u201cSir, sir\u201d at Harry, but the Duke of Sussex headed straight into the international affairs think tank\u2019s building in central London.<\/p>\n Britain’s Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, arrives at Chatham House in central London on July 7, 2026, to attend the fourteenth Invictus Games Foundation Conversation: From Policy to Practice, as part of the One Year to Go celebrations for the Invictus Games Birmingham 2027. Photograph: Justin Tallis\/AFP\/Getty ImagesShare<\/a><\/p>\n PA media has helpfully looked at some of the 14 articles published by Associated Newspapers<\/a> Limited (ANL) that Prince Harry alleges were based on unlawful information gathering. Here are two examples:<\/p>\n One article concerns Harry\u2019s relationship with his first serious girlfriend, Laura Gerard-Leigh, and their \u201cintentions and habits as a couple\u201d.<\/p>\n He alleges it is \u201cextraordinary\u201d that the information in the May 2003 story, titled \u201cHarry falls for a girl from Glossy Posse\u201d, made its way into the press because of the \u201cprivacy he had attached to it and the \u2018tiny\u2019 circle of friends who knew\u201d.<\/p>\n ANL said the story was partly based on photographs taken of the pair with friends at the Badminton Horse Trials \u2013 and has strongly denied the claims.<\/p>\n Another article concerns \u201cintimate details\u201d about Harry\u2019s romantic relationship with Zimbabwean businesswoman Chelsy Davy \u2013 including \u201chis personal feelings of paranoia about the romance leaking to the press\u201d.<\/p>\n Barrister David Sherborne said the November 2004 story by Mail On Sunday journalists Caroline Graham and Barbara Jones, titled \u201cHarry Besotted with Chelsy, his first true love\u201d, is based on \u201cinformation unlawfully obtained from British Airways\u201d, and their explanations as to how they obtained the information is \u201cnonsensical\u201d.<\/p>\n ANL said Graham\u2019s recollection was that she was told of Davy\u2019s name by local freelancers at a ranch where the duke was staying in South Africa. ANL said the \u201cevidence does not support\u201d the allegations that Graham \u201cunlawfully obtained Ms Davy\u2019s flight plans\u201d.<\/p>\n Prince Harry and Chelsy Davy at the Guards Polo Club in Windsor in July 2006. Photograph: Andrew Parsons\/PAShare<\/a><\/p>\n Throughout the High Court claim brought by Prince Harry<\/a>, Sir Elton John and others, lawyers for the Daily Mail\u2019s publisher denied having obtained any information through unlawful means.<\/p>\n Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers<\/a> Limited (ANL), said at the trial\u2019s close that \u201cordinary, legitimate journalism\u201d was the more likely explanation for how the journalists sourced their stories, instead of phone hacking or other unlawful means.<\/p>\n White told the court:<\/p>\n double quotation markWhat is even less likely still\u2026 is that if the 40 journalists were all engaged in serious unlawful information gathering, they would have all made witness statements and queued up to come to court to be cross-examined.<\/p>\n He also said that the journalists provide a \u201ccompelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing\u201d of the more than 50 articles that are alleged to be the products of unlawful information gathering, including from the alleged \u201cleaky\u201d social circles of the celebrities\u2019 friends.<\/p>\n Harry denied having \u201cleaky\u201d social circles, insisting that he was unable to complain about press coverage because of the way the royal system operated.<\/p>\n Prince Harry (right) being questioned by Antony White KC as he gives evidence on day three of the trial over allegations of unlawful information gathering brought against Associated Newspapers Limited. Photograph: Elizabeth Cook\/PAShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a007.40 EDT<\/p>\n The Guardian\u2019s media editor, Michael Savage<\/a>, covered the high-profile trial at the high court in London in January. Here is an extract from his report, which you can read in full here<\/a>:<\/p>\n Prince Harry has accused the publisher of the Daily Mail of wanting to drive him \u201cto drugs and drinking\u201d by placing his life under surveillance, as he told the high court that it continued to \u201ccome after\u201d him and his wife.<\/p>\n The Duke of Sussex was on the verge of tears as he said Associated Newspapers<\/a> Ltd (ANL) had continued to make Meghan\u2019s life \u201can absolute misery\u201d during his litigation against it.<\/p>\n In a brief speech at the end of his court appearance, the duke accused the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday<\/a> of \u201cdelving into every single aspect of my private life, listening in to calls, blagging flights so they can find out where I\u2019m going\u201d.<\/p>\n He said he had never believed details of his life should be \u201copen season to be commercialised by these people\u201d, describing the legal action as a \u201crecurring traumatic experience\u201d.<\/p>\n Harry said:<\/p>\n double quotation markThrough the course of this litigation, it\u2019s only got worse, not better. I think it\u2019s fundamentally wrong to put all of us through this again when all we wanted was an apology and some accountability.<\/p>\n With his voice wavering, he added: \u201cThey continue to come after me. They have made my wife\u2019s life an absolute misery, my lord.\u201d<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.01 EDT<\/p>\n It is not yet known when or whether Prince Harry<\/a> will see his father, King Charles, during his trip as the King has engagements and audiences every day this week.<\/p>\n Harry had reportedly been hoping to reunite his children with their grandfather, 77, who is still undergoing treatment for cancer, for the first time in four years.<\/p>\n Harry met his father last September at Clarence House, the King\u2019s London home, in their first face-to-face meeting since February 2024. It was seen as a first step in improving relations between them.<\/p>\n The duke, who stepped down from the working monarchy six years ago, has levelled a series of accusations at the King, his stepmother the Queen, brother the Prince of Wales and sister-in-law the Princess of Wales in his Oprah interview<\/a>, Netflix documentary, interviews and his autobiography Spare since moving to California in 2020.<\/p>\n Harry broke ties with his family citing the \u201ctoxicity\u201d of royal life and alleged racism towards his wife. He has expressed a wish to reconcile with his father but Harry\u2019s relationship with his older brother is still reportedly strained.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a007.17 EDT<\/p>\n Buckingham Palace says Harry can no longer stay at royal residence on UK visit<\/p>\n Kevin Rawlinson<\/p>\n The Duke of Sussex, who arrived in the UK on Monday, had been hoping to stay at his father\u2019s official residence for one night this week while he visits London.<\/p>\n He is also going to Birmingham as he takes on a series of charity engagements including promoting the Invictus Games.<\/p>\n The \u200cbuildup to the trip has been overshadowed by a dispute with the government over security<\/a>, and a spokesperson for the duke saying on Sunday that the Duchess of Sussex and the couple\u2019s children would not join him in the capital, but could do later when he visited the West Midlands.<\/p>\n PA Media said it was understood the duke and his family had initially been offered accommodation at the palace, but he had turned it down on Saturday.<\/p>\n King Charles III and Prince Harry at the state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II in September 2022. Photograph: Hannah McKay\/WPA Pool via Getty<\/p>\n It is understood that the view from the palace side is that he made a U-turn later that day, and asked if he could stay there alone for the single night. Harry\u2019s team have said a protracted set of security arrangements needed to be handled \u2013 accounting for the delay in accepting.<\/p>\n By then, though, palace officials are said to have believed it was too late to sort out staffing. While the palace claimed every effort had been made to facilitate the duke\u2019s stay, their position was that common courtesy required a minimum level of notice to be given to the staff who make a stay at a royal residence work. Such accommodation would nevertheless be made available to the duke and his family in future, it was said.<\/p>\n But if that all looked like a bit of an unedifying mess, what really upset Harry\u2019s team was the suggestion the invitation had been withdrawn over fears the king would be put in an awkward position when a high court judge rules in a case involving his youngest son on Tuesday.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Ruling expected in Prince Harry’s court battle with Daily Mail publisher<\/p>\n Prince Harry will find out the result of a court case he and others brought against Associated Newspapers<\/a> Limited (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, at about 2pm BST (9am EDT).<\/p>\n The long-running case centres on claims of unlawful information-gathering.<\/p>\n![\"Michael](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Michael-Savage,-L.png\")
Michael Savage<\/p>\n![\"Meghan:](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1852.jpg\")
Meghan: there were \u2018concerns and conversations about how dark Archie\u2019s skin might be\u2019 \u2013 video<\/p>\n