Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, has faced a setback in his legal endeavors as the High Court dismissed his bid to strike out the defense of The Mail on Sunday in a libel lawsuit. Harry, 39, has sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a February 2022 article, alleging it as an attack on his integrity.
In a pivotal ruling, Mr. Justice Nicklin denied Harry's request to dismiss ANL's defense, which maintains the article was an expression of "honest opinion" and did not seriously harm Harry's reputation. The judge stated, "Overall, it is not fanciful that the defendant will be successful, at trial, in demonstrating that the public statements issued on the claimant's behalf sought to promote the judicial review claim as his battle against the Government's decision to refuse to allow him to pay for his own security."
ANL's argument centers around the portrayal of Harry's legal dispute with the Home Office. According to Mr. Justice Nicklin, ANL might successfully demonstrate that public statements made on Harry's behalf were misleading, potentially cast in a positive light to garner public sympathy. The judge highlighted the discrepancy in the portrayal of the judicial review claim as a conflict over security payment, instead of a demand for reinstating taxpayer-funded state security.
This ruling comes amidst Harry's ongoing claim that the February 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to remove his personal protection was "unlawful and unfair". A separate judgment on this matter is expected later.
In response to the court's decision, Mr. Justice Nicklin emphasized the potential of ANL to argue successfully that Harry's team was engaged in "spinning" the narrative. The court had earlier agreed that the Mail on Sunday's story implied Harry was responsible for misleading public statements regarding his willingness to pay for police protection in the UK.
Harry's lawyers have argued that the story, which suggested he sought to keep details of his legal battle over police protection secret, was an attack on his honesty and integrity. This, they claim, undermines his charity work and efforts in combating misinformation. However, ANL's stance is that the article merely voiced an "honest opinion" without causing serious harm to his reputation.
With the latest ruling, the stage is set for a potential trial unless the parties involved can reach a settlement. This legal tussle represents a significant moment in Prince Harry's public life, highlighting the complex interplay between personal reputation, media representation, and legal interpretation.
