The Mail ‘successfully invoked the Human Rights Act,’ which they don’t support

Here are some photos of Prince Harry leaving the High Court in London on Monday. He looked so good – he is healthy and clear-eyed and well-dressed. He has a big stride and a cheeky smile. Bless him. Harry stayed for the whole hearing, and clearly, there was some coordination with his co-plaintiffs. Elton John, Sadie Frost and Doreen Lawrence all attended the hearing even though none of them were testifying. This was a message. It also enabled the international and domestic (British) media to write about exactly why Harry and the others are suing the Mail and what’s happening in the case. The Mail wanted this hearing buried and even now, they’re underreporting what happened and who was there. But other British outlets are… actually doing some straight reporting, without editorializing, without making everything about Harry and his f–ked up family. The Guardian had an interesting piece about the Mail trying to hide the names of the “journalists” involved in the case:

The Daily Mail’s parent company has successfully invoked the Human Rights Act to stop other media outlets naming its journalists in a phone hacking court case. Lawyers working for the Daily Mail said publishing the names would breach the journalists’ right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act. This is despite the Mail long using its editorial pages to campaign against the European-derived legislation.

Barrister David Sherborne, representing Harry and other claimants at the high court, noted it was surprising to see a newspaper that has campaigned for press freedom object to the publication of the names: “They say different rules apply to their journalists suspected of wrongdoing, as opposed to others suspected of wrongdoing.”

Catrin Evans KC, acting for Associated Newspapers, successfully argued there was no justification for publication of the journalists’ names at this stage. She told the court that publication of the names could cause “immense reputational damage” to the 73 individuals who worked for the Mail and invade their privacy.

The company did confirm that the former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and former the Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright are named in the allegations. The allegations of illegal behaviour are strongly denied by the Mail’s parent company and it is not clear in what capacity the 73 individuals are named. The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, agreed and temporarily blocked identification of the Mail journalists pending his interim judgment, partly because the individuals have not had the opportunity to offer up a defence.

He told the court: “Although I do recognise I am preventing the reporting of the journalists’ names at this stage, this is in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice.”

[From The Guardian]

When I first glanced through this article, I thought “wow, the fix is in, wonder how much the judge got paid.” But reading the whole thing in context, I sort of understand why the judge is blocking the names for now, when they’re still in pre-trial motions. It will likely (and hopefully) be much different if and when they go to trial. Still, the hypocrisy is always notable – as you can see, the Mail actively campaigned against the Human Rights Act which they are now using as a shield to protect their blagging, hacking journalists. I’m also reminded of the Mail’s attempts to publish the names of Meghan’s friends who spoke to People Magazine in early 2019, as part of Meghan’s lawsuit against the Mail.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

38 Responses to “The Mail ‘successfully invoked the Human Rights Act,’ which they don’t support”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Pretty clear they believe there is a separate set of laws for them, and that other laws don’t apply to them. So…pretty much like any society with power imbalances and wealth disparities. Especially when the press has been bought and shielded by the wealthy.

  2. Amy Bee says:


    • BothSidesNow says:

      Isn’t this typical thought of the British rags as well as the BaRF, different rules for others except them?? Printing lies, spewing hatred and manipulating the laws to benefit the biggest family of grifters??

      They are all hypocrites. Down to the bone as they would never want to be held accountable nor suffer any consequences.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      If they really don’t believe in what they are saying in court (and their headlines would tend to prove that), then isn’t that perjury? I am also thinking their so-called “journalists” may have committed actual crimes, and perhaps they want to delay the revelation of names as long as possible, to try to outrun any statute of limitations? That’s my best guess.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Yes they are, but, THANK YOU your honour for telling the world there are at least 73 bstds who have made a living out of vile abuse and privacy intrusion against Harry and Megan. YES 73 let’s hope a clerk at the courts has the same ethics as them and hacks the list of names!!!

  3. K8erade says:

    It boggles my mind how The DM somehow able to justify to themselves that their practices being even remotely ethical. Media ethics classes in this country use their practices as examples of unethical media reporting. Even if they win this case the legal fees, the exposure of this court case will mean that they lose.

    That said, in a fair application of law, I see why the judge did what he did. It’s nothing personal and actually just highlights The DM’s own hypocrisy.

  4. BayTampaBay says:

    Did not Peggington try to use the ‘Human Rights Act’ to prevent publication of stories on his Rose gardening hobby?

    • lleepar says:

      Yes. That’s the basis of his super injunction.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yep thou am not sure it was just about his gardening activities. There is more to that super injunction than we know.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Also, is not the UK trying to “pull-out” and leave the European Court of Human Rights or is it the European Court of Justice? Are they the same thing?

  5. Rackel says:

    It’s nice you included his looks. On another site the posters are saying he looks like a drunk druggie. That’s part of their slogans now.

    I have notice that prince Harry has been edited to look drunk or drugged in hostile publications, starting with queen Elizabeth 2 funeral. They even gave him a pot belly and a slouch. I believed it until I saw the raw photos on another site.

    • equality says:

      So they don’t want to allow photoshopping of ads in the UK but find it acceptable to photoshop actual news photos to lie?

    • Abby says:

      holy cow, that is terrible.

    • The Recluse says:

      If anything he looks decidedly NOT thrilled to be shouted at by reporters and paparazzi as he goes in and out. He looks like he’s gritting his teeth and who would blame him?

  6. Lizzie says:

    Just like Fox not reporting on the Dominion lawsuit.

  7. Moxylady says:

    Fascinating and hilarious turn of events. The hypocrisy is staggering. As per usual….

  8. Chloe says:

    “At this stage” so hopefully at a later stage the names will be dropped. If they are scared for reputational damage, they should have thought about that before their illegal activities. My bet is that piers is on that list.

    • Jais says:

      My hope is that the case will not be dismissed. Bc the details will be damning and it will be harder for reporters to brush it aside aside. That said, I think Piers is part of a diff lawsuit from his time at the mirror which doesn’t fall under ANL.

  9. lleepar says:

    The one satisfying result of all the publicity that Harry’s presence brought to this hearing is exposing the DM’s hypocrisy regarding the Human Rights Act. This will be a millstone around the DM’s neck every time they argue it is “the people’s right to know” some other victim’s private life.

  10. C-Shell says:

    As a (mostly) retired lawyer, I understand the ability and practice of arguing opposing sides of an issue, the law, but this takes it to a breathtaking level of hypocrisy. That said, I can agree with the judge’s temporary order because of the early stage of this litigation, provided it’s temporary. When he orders that the case will move forward, these people will have the chance to provide a defense or explanation for their malfeasance and then their shield should be withdrawn.

  11. Becks1 says:

    Ugh its hypocritical but are we surprised?

    It does sound like this is not going to be in effect for the whole trial, or the judge will revisit this decision and might change it down the road, so it will be interesting to see if/when that happens.

    Good for the Guardian for calling out the hypocrisy.

  12. Brassy Rebel says:

    I am shocked, SHOCKED that the Mail is guilty of such blatant hypocrisy. 😱😆

    Harry appears to have upgraded his wardrobe as well. No more TK Maxx sales apparently.

  13. Mary Pester says:

    Sorry, but my first question would have been and should have been (in my opinion) the judge asking “but were the journalists in question ever named in a byline on any of the stories printed by the daily fail? Apart from the sheer BLOODY HYPOCRISY of the Fail, something doesn’t sit right here!!!

  14. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    This is infuriating. The nerve. The unmitigated gall (sry, just saw an image of Jim Carey in my head). How…do they do it? With a straight face and all?

  15. Jojo says:

    Oh, the delicious, delectable irony. Daily Fail reporters… “We want Privacy, We want Privacy…” I’ve never believed in Karma more in my whole life 🤣.

    The judge also, very carefully, made it clear that these 73 names even though not being released right now could certainly be released at a future date. Cue 73 brown stained pairs of undies and hopefully weeks or months of uncertainty for those guilty of putting others through this same kind of fear because of their unethical, cruel & illegal reporting methods.

    Karmic justice aside though, most of these 73 ‘journalists’ are probably all still active working individuals. Even if they are not still working for the Fail they will be employed by for other print publications or other media outlets. Maybe some of them are in quite high ranking positions elsewhere now. I wonder how many of those 73 currently spend their days haranguing and denigrating H&M on a daily basis? Could there be an argument that it is in the public interest to release these names so we all know if there is any associated bias in their current reporting habits?

    Also, I would like to bet that over the next few weeks the more active and ‘receipt keeping’ folks (god bless them all) in the Sussex Squad community will be compiling speculative, ‘probability’ lists of 73 or so names. It won’t be that difficult for those research savvy types to look up the authors of past articles that fit many of the issues being described by Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.

  16. QuiteContrary says:

    The Mail and its parent company are shameless. They have all the nerve and the money to do whatever they hell they want, to argue whatever they want. And they have gotten away with it for decades.

    Hoping that ends because of Harry et al.

  17. Trix says:

    At the risk of subjectifying him, Jesus he’s hot. Poor Wills. How painful it must be to have watched his brother out-hot him for the past 20 years.

    • Beverley says:

      Undoubtedly part of the reason TOB hates him. Damn it, Pegs thinks all the looks and all the brains and all the charm should’ve been HIS. Because he’s the Chosen One.

      Peggington will live his whole life in Prince Harry’s shadow. He’ll never enjoy a day’s peace.
      I love that for him. 🧡🖤🧡

  18. jferber says:

    I’d like to focus on how great Harry looks. He LOOKS like a king, goddamn it! That’s what it is. Now Baldy will try to up his looks game and copykeen his brother, just like his wife does to Duchess Meghan.

  19. Over it says:

    Okay , I am going straight to superficial. Harry is HOTTTT.
    Meghan damn girl. You done good .
    I hope that Harry and the rest of these people suing this gutter rag rips them apart never to be seen or heard from again. It’s time to end tabloids and their unethical illegal practices for good.

  20. Lucky Charm says:

    “…publication of the names could cause “immense reputational damage” to the 73 individuals who worked for the Mail and invade their privacy.”
    Oh, so now THEIR privacy is more important than letting the public know their private information? Wow, the utter hypocrisy is unbelievable. Good luck Prince Harry et al.

  21. Well wisher says:

    Maybe they have a restricted definition of what it is to be human. I hope that they realise that in limiting others they are in fact doing the same to themselves.

    The ‘journalists’ did not see the people they victimized as humans, there in lies the problem.

    • Well Wisher says:

      “Because all humans are equal but some humans are more equal than others…”
      James O’Brien

  22. Feebee says:

    Not surprised in the slightest at ANL’s hypocrisy (unfortunate set of initials there, I keep reading it as something else), nor am I surprised by the ruling as it makes sense in its temporary-ness. I am a bit surprised they were allowed to argue it in the first place as I thought Brexit would have made it irrelevant but I guess law changes take time or they decided it was a good law to keep.