Prince Harry’s legal case ‘very very odd’ aspect comes to light

Prince Harry, alongside six other high-profile claimants, lost their UK High Court case against the Daily Mail’s publisher earlier this week.

The claimants had alleged that their privacy had been violated through phone tapping, intercepting voicemails and obtaining personal information through deception.

Following the decision, entertainment reporter Peter Ford said he was confused by the clear absence of one particular member of Prince Harry’s family.

“Yesterday could have been his greatest triumph ever … either way, wouldn’t your partner want to be there to support you through that?” he told Jimmy Bartel and Mark Allen on 3AW Breakfast as he questioned Harry’s wife, Meghan’s absence.

However, in the court’s ruling, Judge Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants had failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Prince Harry brought the case against Associated Newspapers, along with a number of well-known figures.

They claimed that the newspaper group used unlawful methods for getting information for stories, allegations which were strenuously denied by Associated Newspapers.

In a joint statement following the ruling, Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, another claimant and peer whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993, said, "We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither."

"It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected", the pair added.

A spokesperson for the publisher described the judgement as an "overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists."

In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded the allegations were serious and therefore required more convincing evidence before being proven.

He said the seven claimants could not rely on "suspicion, even where understandable." Instead, he said they had to prove information had been obtained unlawfully.

Mr Justice Nicklin said he accepted the denials of Associated Newspaper journalists "who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents."