Prince Harry and Elton John lose High Court privacy battle against Daily Mail publisher

Court dismisses all claims

The High Court in London on Tuesday dismissed all 97 claims brought by Prince Harry, Elton John, and five other public figures against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove allegations of illegal information gathering, which included phone tapping, voicemail interception, and the use of private investigators. The claims covered articles published between 1993 and 2018. The multi-week trial had run from January to March 2026.

Harry's furious reaction

Prince Harry, who was in the UK for the Invictus Games, issued a statement calling the ruling "shocking and totally unjustified." He said the court had gone to "extremes to exonerate the Mail" and described the decision as a "total and obvious cover-up." Harry added: "We came to this court for justice and accountability. We got neither." He also pointed to what he saw as inconsistencies with previous rulings against other newspaper groups, noting that the judge in this case had previously represented Mirror Group Newspapers and News Group Newspapers.

The lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail are as shocking as they are totally unjustified. This ruling represents a complete reversal of the stance previous judges had taken. It is a total and obvious cover-up, though sadly not entirely unexpected.

Harry cited specific examples he believed were overlooked: a private investigator used by the Mail admitted on tape to obtaining information from Baroness Lawrence through deception; a journalist noted the private investigators used to obtain highly sensitive medical information; and another private investigator emailed a journalist with a passenger's seat number and British Airways ticket details.

The court's reasoning

Judge Nicklin acknowledged that in many cases there were doubts about how journalists obtained information, but stressed that suspicion alone is not proof. He noted that journalists had provided lawful explanations for the information in disputed articles. The judge also found that some claims dated back 20 or 30 years and were brought too late. In one instance involving Prince Harry from 2013, the judge said he understood Harry's concern but that "suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not evidence."

I recognise that he found the article intrusive and was seriously concerned about how journalists apparently knew private information about his relationships. But suspicion — even understandable suspicion — is not proof.

ANL celebrates victory

Associated Newspapers welcomed the ruling. Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of ANL, called it a "victory for the magnificent journalists of Associated" and for press freedom. A spokesperson for the publisher said the decision vindicated the company's long-standing denial of wrongdoing.

This is a victory for the magnificent journalists of Associated and for press freedom itself.

Broader context

The case was one of several legal battles Prince Harry has waged against British tabloids. He previously won settlements from Mirror Group Newspapers and is pursuing claims against News Group Newspapers. The other plaintiffs included singer Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actress Liz Hurley, anti-racism campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, former politician Simon Hughes, and actress Sadie Frost. The ruling was delivered on the same day Harry arrived in London for the Invictus Games.