Prince Harry has admitted defeat in a libel case he brought against the Mail on Sunday, just hours before a deadline for his lawyers to pass over a list of relevant documents. The case was over an article that said his PR aides had tried to "spin" a dispute with the Home Office over its decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded police protection. The duke said this unfairly accused him of trying to confuse the public.
Harry's lawyers Schillings were so confident that they asked Mr Justice Nicklin to have the case ruled in the duke's favour without even having a trial. Last month, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected this request, ruling the newspaper had a'real prospect' of demonstrating that statements issued on his behalf were misleading. His ruling meant the case progressed towards a libel trial.
As part of the normal legal process, both sides have a duty to disclose to the other side any documents that are'relevant' to the case. Under the rules of legal fair play, this obligation applies even if a document might be potentially harmful to their side's arguments. Harry's lawyers informed the newspaper it had filed a notice with the court stating: 'The Duke of Sussex discontinues all of this claim.' The case concerned an article published in February 2022 reporting Harry's separate legal action against the Home Office for withdrawing his police bodyguards.
The Mail on Sunday's article said Harry had tried to keep his Home Office battle secret from the public and that the duke's 'PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute' by claiming Harry had offered to pay personally for the police protection – when at the time the Home Office had received no such offer.
Harry launched his libel action saying the article had been 'an attack on his honesty and integrity'. The Mail on Sunday always contested the claim and stood by its journalism. At a preliminary hearing in March last year, the newspaper's KC showed the court an extract from an email in which Harry argued he needed a job first, writing 'we couldn't afford private security until we were able to earn'.
In its defense against Harry's libel claim, the newspaper relied on the article being an 'honest opinion'. When the duke tried to have this thrown out, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the request, saying that the honest opinion defence is fundamental to the protection of freedom of expression under English law.
