Duke of Sussex wins first stage of libel claim against Mail on Sunday publisher
Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Limited over an article published about his ongoing claim for judicial review against the Home Office.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8af0d/8af0d20b9cd435a5215cb7e8e61f5ba2149c42f8" alt="The Duke of Sussex (PA)"
The Duke of Sussex has won the first stage of his libel claim against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday after a High Court judge ruled an article about the dukeās legal claim against the Home Office was defamatory.
Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) after the paper ran a story following the first hearing in the dukeās separate High Court claim over his security arrangements when he is in the UK.
The piece was published in February under the headline: āExclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secretā¦ then ā just minutes after the story broke ā his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.ā
At a preliminary hearing in June, Mr Justice Nicklin was asked to determine the ānatural and ordinaryā meaning of the article and whether it was defamatory.
In a ruling on Friday, the judge ruled the article was defamatory, later adding this was āvery much the first phaseā of the libel claim.
It may be possible to āspinā 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
Mr Justice Nicklin said a normal reader would understand from the article that Harry āwas 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 Governmentās 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 commencedā.
He also said the article would have been read as giving the opinion that Harry āwas 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 āmisinformationāā.
Mr Justice Nicklin added: āIt may be possible to āspinā 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.
āThat supplies the necessary element to make the meanings defamatory at common law.ā
Read as a whole, the article was quite clear that he was seeking certain confidentiality restrictions in relation to ādocuments and witness statementsā in the proceedings, not blanket secrecy on the whole claim
The senior judge also found that the article did not suggest that Harry āwas seeking to keep his ālegal battleā with the Government secretā, though this might be suggested by the headline if read alone.
He continued: āRead as a whole, the article was quite clear that he was seeking certain confidentiality restrictions in relation to ādocuments and witness statementsā in the proceedings, not blanket secrecy on the whole claim.ā
The judge found that an ordinary reader would understand the article to mean that Harry āhad initially sought confidentiality restrictions that were far-reaching and unjustifiably wide and were rightly challenged by the Home Officeā.
Fridayās judgment only relates to the āobjective meaningā of the article, Mr Justice Nicklin said. ANL will now have the opportunity to file a defence to the dukeās claim.
Harryās lawyers previously argued the article was defamatory and meant that Harry had āliedā, had āimproperly and cynicallyā tried to manipulate public opinion and had ātried to keep his legal fight with the Government secret from the publicā.
However, in his judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the argument the article accused Harry of lying.
He said: āThe 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 āspinningā facts and ālyingā.ā
Lawyers for ANL had argued the focus of the article was on statements put out by Harryās āPR machineā rather than by the duke himself.
However, Mr Justice Nicklin disagreed, ruling: āOf course, it is possible that the public statements issued on the claimantās behalf by the āPR machineā were done without his knowledge or approval, but that is not the ordinary reading of the article.
āA reader could expect, if that was the message being conveyed, that it would be made clear.
āWithout that clarification, the natural reaction of the reader would be that the claimant was responsible for the public statements issued on his behalf.ā
Mr Justice Nicklin said parts of the article would have been seen to be expressions of opinions, including the criticism of āunjustifiably wideā confidentiality restrictions.
Harry is bringing his High Court challenge against the Home Office after being told he would no longer be given the āsame degreeā of personal protective security when visiting from the US, despite offering to pay for it himself.
On Thursday, lawyers for Harry asked a High Court judge to grant permission for a full judicial review of the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) ā which falls under the remit of the Home Office.
A decision on whether this claim can proceed will be given at a later date.