Mail on Sunday article on Prince Harry was defamatory, High Court rules

He ruled on Friday that a normal reader would understand from the article that the Duke “was responsible for public statements” which set out that he “was willing to pay for police protection in the UK” and the Government had refused “whereas the true position, as revealed in documents filed in the legal proceedings, was that he had only made the offer to pay after the proceedings had commenced”.

The judge found that the suggestion in the article that the Prince “was responsible for trying to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling ‘misinformation”‘ was a statement of opinion.

Judgment could make it a ‘harder road’ for Prince’s legal team

Mark Stephens, a solicitor specialising in defamation, said the ruling that it was an opinion gave the newspaper a defence and meant that they were “more likely to win” on that point.

He noted that the judge had also found a “less serious” meaning than the Duke alleged as he ruled the article accused him of “spinning” rather than lying.

Mr Stephens added: “Harry was the winner in this ruling, but the meaning that the judge found was ultimately closer to that submitted by the newspaper.

“I think that this judgment will make it a harder road for his legal team.”

The Duke’s claim against the Government on issues relating to his security is ongoing and on Thursday his lawyers asked the High Court to grant permission for a full judicial review. A decision on whether this claim can proceed will be given at a later date.