The Duke of Sussex has variously described his long-running legal battles with certain sections of the British media as a “mission” and a “life’s work.”
“I’ve been told that slaying dragons will get you burned,” was his defiant response when he claimed victory against Mirror Group Newspapers in December 2023 over historic allegations of unlawful information gathering, adding it was a “worthwhile price to pay.”
He also claimed a “monumental victory” when, in 2025, he settled his legal action against the publishers of the Sun, and the defunct News of the World, with News Group Newspapers apologising for “serious intrusion” and unlawful activities by private investigators.
But Tuesday’s comprehensive loss against Associated Newspapers Ltd, (ANL) publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, does leave the fifth in line to the British throne exactly that: burned, emotionally. With he and his co-claimants also now facing a combined legal bill of more than £50m, there may be financial fallout even with insurance.
The high court ruling, overwhelmingly in favour of ANL, dismissed all claims by the seven high-profile claimants, which included Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence – an 18-year-old black British student who was murdered in a racist attack in south-east London in 1993 – and singer Elton John, saying they had not proved unlawful information gathering. Suspicion was not proof, ruled judge Mr Justice Nicklin.
Of Harry’s own personal evidence, Nicklin said that though “it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue”, this had at times “led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues”. That was “not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves,” Nicklin wrote. He added that Harry, like each of the claimants, “has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute”.
Harry’s decision to ignore the royal family’s mantra “never complain, never explain” and pursue legal action against the British tabloid press has been a major contributory factor in his high-profile rift with his blood family, he has said.
Unfortunate timing dictated that today’s ruling coincided with a rare UK visit by the Californian-based royal, a fact mooted by his aides as a reason for his father, King Charles, withdrawing an offer of accommodation at Buckingham Palace for the night.
The duke had requested to stay there on his flying visit to London ahead of his Invictus Games one-year countdown in Birmingham this week. Buckingham Palace pointed to too little notice being given by the duke for appropriate hospitality and staffing provisions.
As the written judgment was handed down remotely by the judge, Harry was speaking at Chatham House, the international affairs thinktank’s building in central London, addressing the first of a series of events celebrating his Invictus Games. He kept his head down and made the speech, then left the room for a while. The claimants’ barrister, David Sherborne, was seen entering the building,
Harry has been publicly critical of the refusal of his father, and his estranged brother, Prince William, to take on the media themselves. Charles proclaimed such legal battles a “suicide mission”, according to Harry’s bestselling memoir, Spare, in which he accused his family of complicity with the media through alleged leaking.
He wrote that he told Charles and William: “I might learn to endure the press, even forgive their abuse, I might, but my own family’s complicity, that was going to take longer to get over. Pa’s office, Willy’s office, enabling these fiends, if not outright collaborating.”
Harry’s response to the loss did not hide his anger at defeat. In a joint statement with Lawrence, the two condemned the ruling as “a complete and obvious whitewash but sadly not altogether unexpected.
“However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”
They had sought justice and accountability, they said. “But we have received neither.” It was “one rule for the newspapers and another for the claimants.”
He has been resolute in his own mission, haunted by the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, while being chased by paparazzi, and determined to protect his own family from similar media scrutiny.
He may have claimed victories in the past. But there were few words of solace in Tuesday’s unequivocal judgment.
His visceral dislike of some sections of the media, and his absolute insistence that his social circle was not leaky, may have led him to strongly suspect – indeed utterly believe – some stories were gained unlawfully. But, as the judge impressed in his ruling, suspicion is not proof.
