Prince Harry wins latest court battle in blow to free press as judge rules article made him look bad
PRINCE Harry has WON his latest court battle after a High Court judge ruled parts of a Mail on Sunday article about him were defamatory.
The Duke of Sussex is suing publishers Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) after the paper ran a story about his separate High Court claim regarding his UK security arrangements.
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.
While the judge ruled parts of the article were defamatory in the latest stage of the case today, he rejected Harry's claim that the article meant he was "lying".
Discussing one of the meanings of the article, Mr Justice Nicklin said a reader would think Harry "was responsible for public statements, issued on his behalf, which claimed that he was willing to pay for police protection in the UK, and that his legal challenge was to the Government's refusal to permit him to do so, whereas the true position, as revealed in documents filed in the legal proceedings, was that he had only made the offer to pay after the proceedings had commenced".
Read More Prince Harry
He also said the article would have been read as alleging Harry "was responsible for trying to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling 'misinformation'".
Mr Justice Nicklin added: "It may be possible to 'spin' facts in a way that does not mislead, but the allegation being made in the article was very much that the object was to mislead the public.
"That supplies the necessary element to make the meanings defamatory at common law."
He said he "rejected," however, "the claimaints meaning of 'lying'".
Most read in News
The judge reasoned: "The Article does not make that blunt allegation, whether expressly or by implication.
"The hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would understand the difference, as a matter of fact, between 'spinning' facts and 'lying'."
Lawyers for Harry argued the article was defamatory and its content meant that Harry had "lied", had "improperly and cynically" tried to manipulate public opinion and had "tried to keep his legal fight with the Government secret from the public".
Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Harry, said: "Allegations that a person has lied to the public, manipulated the public and attempted to keep secret which ought properly to be public are serious ones which tend to lower him in the eyes of right-thinking people."
However, ANL's lawyers argued the article was not defamatory, with Andrew Caldecott QC arguing: "The article does allege that the claimant's PR team spun the story, or added a gloss unduly favourable to the claimant, which led to inaccurate reporting and confusion about the nature of the claim.
"It does not allege dishonesty against them."
Friday's judgment is the first stage in the Duke of Sussex's libel claim against ANL, with the publisher now due to file their defence to the case.
Mr Justice Nicklin stressed in today's ruling: "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."
Read More on The Sun
Read More on The Sun
In a separate case, which the Mail on Sunday story was referring to, Harry is suing the Home Office over its refusal to spend taxpayers' money on his bodyguards after he quit royal life.
His lawyers asked Mr Justice Swift at a hearing in London yesterday to allow a full judicial review of the Home Office's decision.