Prince Harry rages over 'obvious whitewashed' court decision in UK privacy case

The Duke of Sussex, who has spent years challenging Britain's tabloid press over alleged unlawful newsgathering, said Tuesday's decision was disappointing but "not altogether unexpected".

In Short

• Prince Harry lost final legal battle against Daily Mail publisher
• He called court ruling a 'complete and obvious whitewash'
• Court dismissed privacy claims citing lack of proof on unlawful info gathering

Prince Harry has sharply criticised a British court after losing his final legal battle against the publisher of the Daily Mail, calling the ruling "a complete and obvious whitewash" and accusing the court of going too far in clearing the newspaper group of wrongdoing.

The Duke of Sussex, who has spent years challenging Britain's tabloid press over alleged unlawful newsgathering, said Tuesday's decision was disappointing but "not altogether unexpected". The judgment marks a major setback in Harry's long-running campaign against sections of the British media, a fight he has often linked to the treatment of his late mother, Princess Diana, and his wife, Meghan Markle.

In a strongly worded statement issued after the ruling, Harry accused the court of unfairly siding with the newspaper's publisher.

"The lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted," Harry said.

HARRY HITS OUT AFTER COURT DEFEAT

The ruling came from London's High Court, which dismissed privacy claims brought by Harry and several other well-known figures against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.

Harry described the verdict as "a complete and obvious whitewash", arguing that the evidence presented during the case had not been given proper weight.

His statement was issued jointly with fellow claimant Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered Black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

"We presented to the court evidence which we believed was compelling at the time and remains so now," they said.

Despite the setback, Harry's remarks suggest he remains convinced that unlawful methods were used to gather information about him and the other claimants.

YEARS-LONG BATTLE WITH THE BRITISH PRESS

The lawsuit was one of several legal actions Harry has launched against British newspaper publishers since stepping back from royal duties and moving to California.

The prince has repeatedly argued that parts of the British media relied on illegal practices to obtain private information.

The claim alleged that Associated Newspapers obtained stories through methods including hiring private investigators, intercepting communications, tapping landline telephones and obtaining confidential records through deception, a practice commonly known as "blagging."

The alleged incidents dated from the 1990s through 2011.

Among the other claimants were singer Elton John and social justice campaigner Doreen Lawrence.

Associated Newspapers denied all allegations throughout the proceedings, calling them baseless.

WHY THE COURT REJECTED THE CLAIMS

In his judgment, Justice Matthew Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove that the information published by the Daily Mail had been obtained unlawfully.

He stressed that suspicion alone could not establish wrongdoing.

While dismissing one of Harry's claims concerning an article about his former girlfriend Chelsy Davy, the judge wrote that "privacy alone does not prove unlawful acquisition".

The ruling effectively ended Harry's final remaining legal case against the Daily Mail's publisher.

DAILY MAIL CALLS RULING A VICTORY

Associated Newspapers welcomed the judgment, describing it as a major victory for both the company and press freedom.

The publisher said the ruling represented "an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists and for a free press generally."

The company also said it would seek to recover its legal costs after a case that it estimated had cost more than £50 million in total.

Former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who has frequently clashed with Harry, also criticised the prince following the judgment.

"I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case," Dacre said.

He also accused Harry of hypocrisy, arguing that the prince had repeatedly spoken publicly about private family matters while accusing newspapers of invading his privacy.

A PERSONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HARRY

Harry's legal fight against the British press has always been deeply personal. He has often blamed relentless media attention for contributing to the circumstances surrounding the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997 while being pursued by photographers.

During emotional testimony earlier this year, Harry also told the court that media coverage had made life "an absolute misery" for his wife Meghan.

At times, he struggled to hold back tears while describing the impact of tabloid reporting on his family.

Although Tuesday's ruling represents a significant defeat, Harry has previously secured victories against other newspaper publishers.

He won damages from the publisher of the Daily Mirror over unlawful information gathering and earlier this year reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper group.

Media lawyer Mark Stephens said those earlier successes had helped reshape public debate over Britain's tabloid press.

"His campaign against the other newspaper groups has largely been successful," Stephens told Reuters.

"But I think it's time to reappraise what the media today is and it's very different to the media of (the time of) Princess Diana."

Tuesday's judgment, however, brings to a close Harry's last legal battle against the Daily Mail, ending one chapter of a years-long campaign that has defined much of his relationship with Britain's press since leaving royal life.

- Ends