Prince Harry today lost the latest stage of a libel battle over claims he had attempted to mislead the public.
The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to ‘spin’ a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection.
He asked the High Court to rule that the newspaper could not use a legal defence of ‘honest opinion’, and for a judge to rule in his favour without the need for a trial.
But the judge ruled that Associated Newspapers – publisher of The Mail on Sunday (TMOS) and the Daily Mail – had a ‘real prospect’ of demonstrating that statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading, and refused his requests.
Prince Harry today lost the latest stage of a libel battle over claims he had attempted to mislead the public
High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the newspaper had ‘a real prospect of succeeding in demonstrating also that an honest person could have held the opinion that the Claimant [the Duke] was responsible for attempting to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position’.
He refused the Duke’s request for the case to be decided without a public trial, and for newspaper’s defence of ‘honest opinion’ to be thrown out.
The judge said: ‘The honest opinion defence is fundamental to the protection of freedom of expression under English law.’
Harry, 39, launched libel action against TMOS over an article published in February 2022, about his legal action against the Home Office.
He applied for a judicial review against the Home Office after the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, decided he was no longer entitled to automatic police protection after he and wife Meghan stepped down as working members of the Royal Family.
The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article which claimed his PR aides tried to ‘spin’ a dispute with the Home Office, over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection
TMOS published an exclusive article in January 2022 which reported that Harry had threatened the Government with legal action unless his publicly-funded security protection was continued.
A Press statement was then issued on his behalf, saying he had offered to pay for police protection for him and his family when they were in Britain, but that the offer was refused.
In a February 2022 article, TMOS reported that no such offer to pay had been made to Ravec or included in his lawyers’ ‘pre-action’ letters to the Home Office.
The newspaper said Harry’s PR advisers had briefed journalists from other media outlets, saying the Duke had offered ‘to pay personally for UK police protection’ and remained willing to do so.
It said his ‘spin doctors swung into action’ and that his aides had tried to influence coverage of the story, adding that such conduct was ‘ironic given the Prince now has a role with a Silicon Valley firm tackling ‘misinformation’ online.’
Harry launched legal action for libel, claiming the article was ‘an attack on his honesty and integrity’ and could undermine his charity work and his efforts to tackle misinformation online.
TMOS contested the claim, and said its article expressed an honest opinion and did not cause ‘serious harm’ to his reputation.
In today’s ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that Harry claims he raised concerns about security and offered to personally finance the cost of security at a meeting with his grandmother, the late Queen, his father and his brother William at Sandringham in January 2020.
But that offer was not included in later correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, although Harry maintains he raised it with him personally.
The judge said TMOS was entitled to seek to prove that Harry had not made an offer to the Government to pay for his own police protection before issuing the judicial review claim.
The newspaper has ‘a real prospect’ of demonstrating that the Press statement and the background briefing given to selected journalists on his behalf were not accurate, he said.
He asked the High Court to rule that the newspaper could not use a legal defence of ‘honest opinion’, and for a judge to rule in his favour without the need for a trial. But the judge ruled that Associated Newspapers – publisher of The Mail on Sunday (TMOS) and the Daily Mail – had a ‘real prospect’ of demonstrating that statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading, and refused his requests
Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘There is a real prospect that the Defendant [TMOS] will succeed in demonstrating that this was a misleading description of the issues in the JR [judicial review] claim, arguably promoted because it was hoped to show the Claimant’s [Harry’s] JR claim in a positive light, whereas a portrayal of the JR claim as the Claimant trying to force the Government to reinstate his (taxpayer funded) State security risked his appearing in a negative light.
‘I anticipate that, at trial, the Defendant [TMOS] may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning’.
‘And, the Defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public.’
He went on: ‘Having now seen the sequence of events, in my judgment, the Defendant [TMOS] does have a real prospect of demonstrating that an honest person could have held the view that this was precisely what was being done on the Claimant’s [Harry’s] behalf.’
A hearing dealing with the consequences of Mr Justice Nicklin’s ruling is expected to be held next week.
The ruling came a day after the High Court finished hearing Harry’s judicial review claim that the Ravec decision to downgrade his security was ‘unlawful and unfair’. A decision in that case is expected at a later date.
Read More: World News | Entertainment News | Celeb News
247
