Former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has given his reaction to an “overwhelming” High Court privacy trial victory versus Prince Harry saying the case was a “conspiracy” to destroy the paper.
He also said the verdict is an “overwhelming vindication of our journalism”.
Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, and former Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes were the claimants who failed to prove some 97 allegations of unlawful information gathering against Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers.
[Read more: Prince Harry privacy trial judgment: ‘Overwhelming victory’ for Daily Mail]
“Four years ago, lawyers for Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and Elton John accused the Mail, in a blaze of publicity, of placing bugs in homes, cars, cafés and landline phones,” Dacre said.
“We described these charges – some related to stories that were over 30 years old – as ‘lurid and preposterous’. Today, in what was a momentous victory for the Mail, the High Court dismissed every single one of the 97 claims.
“That is an overwhelming vindication of our journalism.
“The Mail’s famous front-page naming five thugs as Stephen Lawrence’s ‘MURDERERS’, could have seen me jailed for Contempt of Court. Instead, it triggered the McPherson Inquiry and the eventual jailing of two of the killers. Stephen’s father, Neville, says he owes the Mail everything. Why Baroness Lawrence – for whom we have always had profound respect and sympathy – chose to turn on both the paper, and the brilliant reporter who campaigned for justice for her son for over two decades, is something I will never be able to comprehend.
[Read more: The 53 Mail articles vindicated by Prince Harry privacy judgment]
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin.
“Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante.
“The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50m and wasted a huge amount of valuable Court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession.
“Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper.
“Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”
The Government’s Media Green Paper, published in June 2026, sets out a new strategic direction for the Government’s media policy.
Dacre continued: “Some of the allegations made by Harry’s lawyers against the Mail involved Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. They were rejected by the court.
“But remember it was the power of the Mail’s journalism that, not once, but twice, resulted in Mandelson being sacked as a minister. And it was the Mail on Sunday’s exclusive picture of Prince Andrew, with his arm around 17 year old Virginia Guiffre in Ghislaine Maxwell’s home, that, ultimately, resulted in justice for Epstein’s underage victims.
“Such justice only happened, as with Stephen Lawrence, because of the actions of a free press.”
In a joint statement, Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence called the judgment a “complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims” following his previous wins against the publishers of the Mirror and The Sun.
They said: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.
“Generic findings about various private investigators that were held by the courts in these parallel claims to have carried out unlawful activity at the very same time in relation to similar stories and well-known individuals have been wholly ignored.
“The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the court room itself.
“It is 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.”
In his witness statement, claimaint Hughes said he was moved to sue Associated Newspapers after being shown emails and payment records suggesting convicted phone hacker Greg Miskiw was employed by the Mail publisher to target him.
Following the verdict, Hughes said: “The judgment in the case against ANL is naturally very disappointing for me, and I am sure for all other claimants.
“I shall take time to consider the lengthy judgment in detail and plan to make no further comment in the near future.”
Mail defendant: Case brought by ‘money grabbing celebrities’
Nicole Lampert, showbusiness editor at the Daily Mail between 2002 to 2006, was questioned in Court on claims that she approved invoices for private investigations firm Express Locate International (ELI) as she was in charge of the finances for the department.
She said on X: “A few weeks after my father died I had to face five hours of ever more ridiculous and desperate questioning in the High Court about how I sourced stories more than 20 years ago.
“At one point their barrister, plucking at straws in a way that was truly shocking, even claimed I must have hacked the police to find out how much Elton John was spending on the security for his wedding. When it was much more likely his PR had told me.”
Lampert added that she and her colleagues saw their “reputations being challenged in court off the back of lies and fakery”.
“A whole court case which cost millions and created huge stress for hundreds of us, was concocted by convicted fraudsters,” she added. “I was constantly amazed it had even made it into the courtroom because there was no substance to any of it. So I’m pleased Prince Harry and his merry band of money-grabbing celebrities have totally and utterly lost this court case with not a single one of their grubby allegations proven.”
‘Massive defeat for Ginger Whinger’
Media figures including Piers Morgan and London Centric’s Jim Waterson were among those repsonding to the ruling on social media, while Daily Mail journalists have welcomed the outcome on X.
Piers Morgan said on X: “Massive win for the Mail, massive defeat for the Ginger Whinger and the other celebrities involved who love to use the media when it suits them. How delicious that he’s come back to UK just in time to be humiliated. Expect the mother of all tantrums later…”
Dan Wootton, former GB News presenter, said on X: “Breaking right now: Prince Harry has lost his case against the Daily Mail. He lied in Court. His reputation is shattered. King Charles must now strip his titles. This was make or break and it’s over.”
Senior feature writer at the Daily Mail Guy Adams said on X: “Fools and their money are easily parted but this was a grotesque attempt to smear some fine colleagues and I am delighted with the outcome.”
His colleague Richard Eden, Daily Mail diary editor, said: “Shame on him for what he has put my esteemed colleagues through”.
Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun and founder of Talksport radio station, said that it was a “great day for journalism”.
“Hooray. Prince Harry left with £20-30million legal bill as High Court throws out his claim that the Daily Mail unlawfully sourced stories about him. Great day for journalism, shocking day for a self-involved homeless twerp,” he shared on X.
David Yelland, co-presenter of a BBC Radio 4 podcast series and former editor of The Sun, said on X: “Harry loses! This is the greatest day in the history of the Daily Mail, an embarrassment for Harry who dragged in good people like Doreen Lawrence… An end to any hope of Leveson 2. Be in no doubt. Harry has utterly failed.”
Talk TV presenter Kevin O’Sullivan described the claimant’s case as an “epic fail” on X.
“Prince Harry and all the celebs who think newspapers are always wrong and they don’t need evidence to prove it just learned a lesson. They do! Their lawsuit against the Mail group alleging its journalists used illegal methods to stalk them has been dismissed in full. Epic fail!”
Hacked Off: Mail stories ‘devastatingly intrusive’
At the close of the 11-week trial in May, lawyer for Associated Antony White KC said that said the claim had been conceived by press reform campaign group Hacked Off as a “political campaign”.
Following the verdict, Hacked Off said the courts “are not the appropriate vehicle” for investigating the Mail for wrongdoing.
Hacked Off board director Jacqui Hames said: “The stories and conduct which formed the basis for the claims against the Mail were devastatingly intrusive, and included medical details, information about children, and other deeply invasive behaviour and coverage.
“The Mail’s conduct fell well short of professional standards in the press, yet nothing has changed in the last twenty years and news publishers like the Mail still remain outside any independent form of regulation. Action to address standards in the press is long overdue, and must be a priority for the incoming administration.
“The courts are not the appropriate vehicle for investigating the allegations of wrongdoing against the Mail in their fullness, and the judgment was clear in stating that, focusing on a handful of individual articles, the court had not made findings on whether illegality was widespread at the Mail.
“Now only a public inquiry can get to the bottom of what really happened. Leveson Part Two must proceed without further delay.”
Media lawyer: Relying on Gavin Burrows ‘disaster’
Media lawyer Louis Charalambous, who has has acted for publishers including The Sun in its successful libel battle against Johnny Depp, said the cases brought by the claimaints were “over-ambitious” and “relied heavily on inference”.
He also pointed to the “disaster” that was relying on testimony from former private investigator Gavin Burrows, who allegedly gave a statement to Prince Harry’s legal team in 2021 saying he had been commissioned by the Mail on Sunday to carry out phone-hacking and blagging hundreds of times between 2000 and 2005.
By the time the trial came around Burrows was claiming this was “absolutely incorrect” and gave a fresh statement in support of Associated Newspapers’ defence. He said the signature on the original statement was forged.
Charalambous said: “The entire dismissal of all the claims against the Daily Mail’s publishers is a calamity for all seven claimants. The cases brought were over-ambitious, lacked strong evidence and relied heavily on inference. I have previously said that any case in this area relying on inference has to be strong to be successful. Additionally, their reliance on Mr Burrows turned into a disaster when he turned on them during the case, weakening their position.
“It is rare for a newspaper to win cases like this and even where the judge suspected unlawful means, there was insufficient proof to find against the Mail in any of the allegations. He also rejected their attempt to see it as a pattern of misconduct by the newspaper. The spotlight will now be on the people who encouraged the claimants to bring these cases and the financial position it puts them in, running reportedly to over £10m. Those of us who kept a close eye on the proceedings are not surprised by the outcome and in all likelihood this spells the end of this kind of litigation.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
