Prince Harry and others launch appeal after losing Daily Mail phone-hacking claim

Prince Harry and five other prominent figures have officially filed a legal challenge against a judge’s verdict in their unsuccessful claims against the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers. The group, which includes Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, alongside Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, and Sadie Frost, is seeking permission to appeal the decision from the court of appeal.

In July, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the case in a 436-page written verdict following an 11-week trial. The judge ruled that the claimants failed to prove that any information had been obtained unlawfully. The court stated that it could not be inferred that a story was sourced illegally if there remained a legitimate and realistic legal way for the information to have been obtained.

Prince Harry and five co-claimants are appealing a court ruling that dismissed their phone-hacking claims against a publisher.

Legal challenges for Prince Harry

The legal team for the claimants alleged during the trial that private investigators, freelance journalists, and staff at Associated Newspapers engaged in activities such as voicemail interception, landline tapping, and obtaining information through deception. Conversely, lawyers for the publisher argued that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday provided a legitimate account of sourcing articles, citing friends, spokespeople, and previously published reports. Associated’s legal team characterized the allegations as preposterous and lurid.

In a statement released on Friday, a spokesperson for the claimants confirmed that applications had been filed with the court of appeal to challenge both the dismissal of the claims and the indemnity costs order. The claimants stated they respectfully disagree with the decisions, describing them as legally and factually flawed. Following the initial verdict, Prince Harry and Doreen Lawrence criticized the judgment as a whitewash, questioning how justice could be achieved when the court found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

Why it matters

The legal dispute carries significant financial implications, as the claimants face a potential total legal bill exceeding £50 million. In August, the court ordered an initial contribution of over £9.5 million toward the publisher's costs to be paid within seven days. The appeal process will now determine whether the court of appeal permits a challenge to these rulings, which the publisher and former editor Paul Dacre previously described as a conspiracy against the newspaper.