Prince Harry and six other high-profile figures have lost their privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, with a High Court judge dismissing all 97 claims and leaving them facing a legal bill of up to £50m. In a 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the group – which included Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes – had failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL).
The case, which went to trial in January and lasted 11 weeks, accused the publisher of methods including phone hacking, landline tapping and obtaining information through deception. The judge said the allegations were serious but required “more cogent evidence” to be proven. He accepted the denials of ANL journalists who “gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents”. After the verdict, Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence issued a joint statement calling the ruling “a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected”. They said: “We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”
“Prince Harry and six others lose High Court privacy case; judge says they failed to prove unlawful information gathering.”
ANL’s editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, described the outcome as “an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists” and a vindication of free press. The case had been filed in October 2022, nearly four years before the judgment on 7 July 2026. The claimants had argued that ANL used unlawful methods over many years, but the judge found that each article complained about had been lawfully sourced. He also dismissed suggestions that senior Mail figures, including Dacre, had lied to the Leveson inquiry.
Prince Harry did not respond to questions as he left an Invictus Games event in London. The ruling is likely to signal an end to new litigation related to the phone-hacking scandal era, as the court made clear that suspicion alone cannot prove unlawful behaviour.