Prince Harry loses final stage of legal battle against Mail on Sunday as judge rejects Duke’s request for a trial without a public trial

Prince Harry today lost the final stages of a defamation battle over claims he had tried to mislead the public.

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article claiming his PR staff tried to ‘divert’ a dispute with the Home Office over the decision to cut his taxpayer-funded police protection.

He asked the Supreme Court to rule that the newspaper could not use a legal defense of “honest opinion,” and that a judge would rule in his favor 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 showing that statements made on Harry’s behalf were misleading, and refused his requests.

High Court Judge Nicklin said the newspaper had ‘a real prospect of succeeding also in showing that an honest person could have considered that the claimant [the Duke] was responsible for attempts to mislead and confuse the public about its true position’.

He refused the duke’s request to hear the case without a public trial and to dismiss the newspaper’s defense of ‘honest opinion’.

The judge said: ‘The defense of honest opinions is fundamental to the protection of freedom of expression under English law.’

39-year-old Harry started a defamation action against TMOS following an article published in February 2022 about his legal action against the Ministry of the Interior.

He filed 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 his wife Meghan stepped down from working members of the royal family.

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over an article claiming his PR staff tried to ‘divert’ a dispute with the Home Office over the decision to cut his taxpayer-funded police protection

TMOS published an exclusive article in January 2022 reporting that Harry had threatened the government with legal action unless his government-funded security protection continued.

A press statement was subsequently issued on his behalf, stating that he had offered to pay for police protection for him and his family while they were in Britain, but this offer was rejected.

In a February 2022 article, TMOS reported that no such offer of payment was made to Ravec or included in his lawyers’ ‘pre-action’ letters to the Ministry of the Interior.

The newspaper said Harry’s PR advisers had informed journalists from other media outlets and that the duke had offered to “personally pay for British police protection” and remained willing to do so.

It said his “spin doctors took action” and that his aides had tried to influence reporting of the story, adding that such behavior was “ironic considering the Prince now plays a role at a Silicon Valley firm that spreads “disinformation” online tackles.’

Harry launched legal action for defamation, claiming the article was ‘an attack on his honesty and integrity’ and could undermine his charity work and efforts to tackle misinformation online.

TMOS disputed the claim, saying the article expressed honest opinions and did not cause “serious damage” to its reputation.

In today’s ruling, Judge Nicklin said Harry claims he raised security concerns and offered to personally fund security costs during 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 subsequent correspondence with Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, although Harry claims he raised it with him personally.

The judge said TMOS was entitled to try to prove that Harry had not made an offer to the government to pay for his own police protection before bringing the judicial review claim.

The newspaper has “a real prospect” of demonstrating that the press statement and background information given on its behalf to selected journalists were not accurate, he said.

He asked the Supreme Court to rule that the newspaper could not use a legal defense of “honest opinion,” and that a judge would rule in his favor 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 showing that statements made 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 showing that this was a misleading description of the issues in the GA [judicial review] claim, which was probably promoted because it was hoped to show the claimant’s [Harry’s] JR claim in a positive light, while portraying the JR claim as the claimant trying to force the government to restore its (taxpayer-funded) state security risks portraying it in a negative light to stand.

“I expect the defendant to appear at trial [TMOS] can very well claim 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 continued: “Having seen the sequence of events, in my judgment the defendant [TMOS] does have a real prospect of showing that an honest person could have believed that this was exactly what was done at the claimant’s request. [Harry’s] On behalf of.’

A hearing on the implications of Judge Nicklin’s ruling is expected to take place next week.

The ruling came a day after the Supreme Court concluded its hearing with Harry’s claim that Ravec’s decision to downgrade his security was “unlawful and unfair.” A decision in that case is expected at a later date.