The Duke of Sussex has withdrawn his High Court libel claim against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, stating that his focus is on “the safety of his family”.
Harry, 39, had sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a February 2022 article about his challenge against the Home Office which he alleged was “an attack on his honesty and integrity”.
This latest legal development comes in the wake of Harry being awarded £140,600 in damages after a judge ruled the duke’s phone was probably hacked “to a modest extent” by Mirror Group Newspapers.
Taking to the witness stand in June, he accused the publisher of the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror of sowing distrust and paranoia between him and his inner circle, after a series of articles revealed personal details about his relationships, injuries and drug-taking.
His case, alongside those of former Coronation Street actress Nikki Sanderson, comedian Paul Whitehouse’s ex-wife Fiona Wightman and actor Michael Turner, were considered as “test cases” at a seven-week trial held this summer.
He has also won the right to continue his legal battle against the Daily Mail publisher, after accusing them of unlawful information gathering.
Prince Harry is among a group of high-profile individuals, including Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, who have brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Even though Harry and his wife Meghan moved to California more than three years ago, he remains mired in several legal battles making their way through the British courts.
Most of his other cases relate to alleged intrusion and illegality by the media – behaviour that Harry recently said he now views as his “life’s work” to curtail.
These are the legal cases the duke has been involved in over the past four years:
Privacy claim against Splash News and Picture Agency
In May 2019, Harry accepted substantial damages and an apology from a news agency that took pictures of his home in the Cotswolds from a helicopter.
Harry settled privacy and data protection claims against Splash News and Picture Agency over photographs “of and into the living area and dining area of the home and directly into the bedroom”.
The court heard Splash agreed to pay damages and legal costs.
Legal action against the Home Office
The duke has brought legal action against the Home Office over the security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK.
He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which falls under the remit of the Home Office – over his security, after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting.
Harry’s lawyers say he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision, arguing a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a “successful attack” on him meant the approach to his protection was “unlawful and unfair”.
The court heard the duke believes his children cannot “feel at home” in the UK if it is “not possible to keep them safe” there. Mr Justice Lane will give his ruling over the claim at a later date.
Harry asked for permission to bring a second High Court challenge against the Home Office over a decision that he should not be allowed to pay privately for his protective security. However, this was refused in a ruling by Mr Justice Chamberlain last month.
Libel claim against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL)
The duke has withdrawn his claim against ANL – the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday – over an article about his case against the Home Office.
The story was published online and in the newspaper in February 2022 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”.
Justin Rushbrooke KC, for Harry, said the Mail On Sunday article “purported to reveal, in sensational terms” that information from court documents filed by the duke “contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK”.
ANL is contested the claim, arguing the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause “serious harm” to his reputation.
In a ruling last month, the duke lost a bid to have their defence thrown out by a judge and was subsequently ordered to pay £48,447 “on account” towards the publisher’s lawyers’ bills.
A spokeswoman for the publisher confirmed to the PA news agency on Friday that Harry had withdrawn his libel case.
Alleged unlawful information gathering at News Group Newspapers (NGN)
Harry is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World, over alleged unlawful information gathering.
The duke alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for the papers.
At a hearing in April, the publisher asked a judge to throw out his claim, arguing it was brought too late, along with a similar claim brought by Hugh Grant.
But Mr Justice Fancourt later ruled that Harry and the actor’s claims could go to trial, except for any allegations relating to phone hacking.
The judge also refused to allow the duke to rely on an alleged “secret agreement” between the royal family and senior executives working for media mogul Rupert Murdoch as part of his claim.
NGN, which denies any unlawful activity took place at The Sun, disputed that such an agreement was in place.
Harry’s claim is set to go to trial in January 2025.
Alleged unlawful information gathering at Associated Newspapers Limited
Harry is one of seven people, also including David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, bringing legal action against ANL over denied allegations it carried out or commissioned unlawful information gathering.
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the case could continue, concluding in his 95-page judgement that each of the seven people in the claim have a “real prospect” of demonstrating that ANL concealed “relevant facts” that would have allowed them to bring a claim earlier.
The allegations include hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing and recording private phone conversations.
ANL, which “firmly” denies the allegations, asked a judge to rule in its favour without a trial, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”.
However, the judge concluded that the “fair resolution” of any issue over the timing of the claims being brought “must await trial”.
Alleged unlawful information gathering at Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN)
The world’s media descended on a courtroom in London to see the duke give evidence across two days in his contested claim against MGN over allegations its journalists were linked to voicemail interception, securing information through deception and hiring private investigators for unlawful activities.
MGN largely contested the claims and denied any of the articles complained of resulted from phone hacking while contending the vast majority did not arise from any other unlawful activity.
In a ruling in December, Harry was awarded £140,600 in damages after Mr Justice Fancourt ruled the duke’s phone was probably hacked “to a modest extent” by the publisher.
The judge said that 15 of the 33 articles examined at trial “were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering”.
A further hearing is now expected in this case in the coming months.
