Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/07/2026 9:32:37 AM PDT by RandFan
The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other high-profile figures against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full.
The case brought by the Duke of Sussex and six fellow claimants, including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, was heard at a three-month trial at London's High Court at the beginning of this year.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, accepted that every article complained about was lawfully sourced.
The claim was brought against Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
In an executive summary of his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said: 'Associated called journalist witnesses who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents.
'The Court accepted their evidence, including their denials of UIG [unlawful information gathering].
'The allegations were serious: they included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.'
The High Court's ruling has been described as an 'overwhelming vindication of our journalism' by former editor Paul Dacre. He said in a statement: '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.
'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.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
This will put Meghan in a good mood.
😅
Enjoying every minute of the story.
“journalism”
“’It is rare for a newspaper to win cases like this. The spotlight will now be on the people who encouraged the claimants to bring these cases and the financial position it puts them in. In all likelihood spells the end of this kind of litigation.’ “
one would think that this means the D.M. will sue these folks into oblivion for false and malicious defamation ...
“This will put Meghan in a good mood.”
She prefers to be addressed as ‘Sussex’.
To be pronounced suSEX.
We should not care what the Countess of Dumbarton thinks.
Whether or not she was a yacht girl, my feelings for her won't change.
Next up are Harry’s visa files...
Oh, holy moly, get a load of this...
“...If Nicklin makes findings of serious misconduct over the fabricated-statement allegations, the Mail can seek costs on the punitive indemnity basis, blowing past the cap entirely...”
And then there’s the perjury issue. Per AI and sourced to ITV...
“Insurance Coverage for Legal Costs: Standard litigation insurance (After The Event, or ATE) is commonly used in UK civil courts to shield individuals from massive legal bills if they lose. However, coverage is highly contingent on the case having “merit” and is frequently invalidated if any evidence is deemed falsified or if the claimant misleads the court. The Daily Mail publisher challenged the credibility of several aspects of the claimants’ research and witness statements, which significantly complicates any potential insurance payouts to cover the multimillion-pound losses from this judgment.”
(suckseks)
watch the video at link. The editor completely scolds hypocrite Harry.
It was a wonderful reply. The British have such a way with words....”he didnt just take the whole biscuit, he took the whole tin.” Marvelous putdown without any 4 letter words.
I thought the Mail got some of their info from illegally recorded phone calls and wire taps. I guess I was wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.