Prince Harry: The Daily Mail judgment is ‘a complete and obvious whitewash’

The dark forces really timed everything perfectly this week. Almost like there was high-level collusion to disrupt, humiliate and ruin Prince Harry. From King Charles’ last-minute withdrawal of palace housing to the judge issuing his ruling on the Mail lawsuit just as Harry arrived at an Invictus event, it all worked out perfectly for the worst people in the world. As much as Prince Harry’s haters wanted to portray him as weakened, humbled and/or “almost near tears,” I have to give Harry a lot of credit for coming out swinging like a man who stopped giving a crap long ago. A few hours after Harry and his co-plaintiffs lost their case against the Mail, Harry and Baroness Lawrence issued a scathing joint statement.

Prince Harry is speaking out after suffering a major legal setback in his years-long battle against the British press. Hours after Mr. Justice Nicklin dismissed Harry’s lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited following a 46-day trial, the Duke of Sussex released a joint statement with fellow claimant Baroness Doreen Lawrence on Tuesday, July 7.

“We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither,” Harry and Baroness Lawrence said. “This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous Judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (who were represented by, at the time, the Judge who made this decision). 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 courtroom itself.”

“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected,” they continued. “However, the lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”

“When the Court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, despite the documents showing otherwise, then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved,” they continued. “One need not look past when a private investigator the Mail used actually admitted on tape to having unlawfully blagged Baroness Lawrence, or when a journalist recorded the name of the private investigators she used to find out about highly sensitive medical information (that even the Mail was too worried to publish) or when another private investigator emailed one of the journalists with the actual British Airways seat number and ticketing details for a young girl simply visiting her boyfriend in return for payment,” seemingly referring to Harry’s ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, who was the subject of some of the stories raised in the trial. (Harry said on the witness stand that the press engaged in “widespread invasion of my privacy” of his relationship with Davy, whom he dated on and off between 2004 and 2010.)

“It feels here like one rule for the newspapers and another for the claimants. While the Claimants presented evidence, Mail journalists simply gave denials, and the Court chose uncritically to believe them, even in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and blatant untruths that were obvious to neutral observers in Court when compared to the documents,” they added. “We presented to the Court evidence which we believed was compelling at the time and remains so now. We would like to thank our legal team for all their hard work and all the witnesses who were brave enough to come forward in the pursuit of justice.”

[From People]

The most damning piece of information – which I didn’t know before now – is that the judge on this case, Justice Matthew Nicklin, was the Mirror Group’s defense attorney WHEN HARRY SUED THE MIRROR. Harry won that case! Not only did Harry win in court, the Mirror Group had to settle out of court with all of Harry’s outstanding complaints not covered in the first trial. I remember that the Mirror’s lawyer was super-salty. Now, less three years later, the salty-ass Mirror lawyer is the judge on Harry’s lawsuit against the Mail/ANL? Come on. Tell me the British media functions as a cartel without telling me the British media functions as a cartel.

Anyway, props to Harry and Baroness Lawrence for calling these people to account. The whole system is rotten. But Harry didn’t let them see him sweat it – as he exited Chatham House yesterday (after the ruling came out), he smiled and gave a thumbs up so all of his haters have to use those photos with this amazing statement.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

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

27 Responses to “Prince Harry: The Daily Mail judgment is ‘a complete and obvious whitewash’”

  1. Helen says:

    The system is broken and must be fixed?
    No, the system is working as planned and must be destroyed.

  2. YankeeDoodles says:

    Throughout this ordeal by public taunting and hounding and vicious caricature, for ten years now, I have always believed — as an expat American in the UK — that there was some sound core of British decency and that these people would eventually wake up, and snap out of it. I did believe that UK institutions were fundamentally possessed of some integrity and structurally sound, not contaminated by ideology, on the one hand, or intrigue, or corrupted by vested interests, ulterior motives, mercenary agendas, or careerist shades of moral relativism. That seems naive. The fact that the judge in this case was the defendants’ advocate in another case almost identical to it, is stunning. It is laughably implausible and utterly silly.

    • Josephine says:

      It is deeply unethical and makes the UK judiciary a laughingstock at best, a corrupt swamp more likely.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        I’m confused as to why the plaintiffs’ counsels didn’t point out that the judge is compromised. Why are we only learning about this now? They should have requested a new judge, and if that’s not granted, shout it from the rooftops.

  3. Amy Bee says:

    Very good statement. The judge should have recused himself from the case. Apparently almost the entire royal rota was outside Chatham House waiting to see Harry. But according to them he’s irrelevant.

  4. Dee(2) says:

    So, no one thought that that would present a conflict of interest or even may look ethically unsound and wasn’t a good idea? I win two cases with the same amount of information, and just so happen to lose the third case where the judge was a lawyer for the defense previously?

    Even if the judge and his ruling was above board, the fact that he did not have enough foresight to realize how this would look is odd to me. Judges have recused themselves for being in the same social organizations as claimants and he was a whole ass lawyer for a News group?

    You can tell that it’s killing the media that he isn’t slinking around with a sad face. This detail after all the shenanigans with BP and his security just make it seem like more of an establishment stitch up. They may think that they’re embarrassing Harry, but what they’re doing instead is doing too much at once that even people who aren’t paying attention can connect the dots.

    Won’t give you security, rescinding your offer of somewhere safe to stay the day you’re supposed to arrive, and you lose a court case where the judge was a lawyer for the defense in a previous case that you won for the same thing? Sure, seems legit.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      Sounds like an organized crime scheme when you gather all of the different aspects like this. Especially when you add the money grabbing operations of the royal family, aided by the BM’s propaganda machine.

  5. Tessa says:

    I hope negativity continues to be directed at senior royals.

  6. JanetDR says:

    That was a clear statement. Nowhere to go but forward. Be safe Harry!

  7. Mightymolly says:

    When Andie goes to prom to let them know they didn’t break her, it’s like it wrote Harry’s whole play book. How does he just keep smiling and showing up? Of course he has a wonderful life across the pond and everything to be happy for, but we all break a little when we return to the scene of former trauma. Harry holds his head high and gives a thumbs up. My heart.

  8. EggMayo says:

    As a French citizen who has lived in both the US and the UK, each for over 15 years, I wish my American friends would understand that, regardless of what has been happening in the US, particularly under Trump 2, democracy is far healthier in the US than it is or ever was in the UK.
    Under its mask of political correctness, Britain remains as cruel as it was during its Empire, unfair, particularly to its poor and yes, more corrupt.
    Your court just preserved birthright. Margaret Thatcher abolished it in the 1990’s and nobody seemed to care then or now.

    • YankeeDoodles says:

      This is @EggMayo, that is fascinating.

    • Josephine says:

      Looking at the current system in the US, I would say that the US has some deeply terrifying lapses of democracy as well, and to me, a supreme court that can no longer be trusted. I think trust in the US court system and administrative agencies is at an all-time low, and that is by design. Despots set out to ruin institutions and then claim that they need to be despots because the institutions are not working.
      In the UK, ridding themselves of the immoral, lazy, corrupt royal family would at least be a step in the right direction since all of this was done to punish a member of the family who could not be bought off.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      @Eggmayo: the US has a written constitution and birthright citizenship is clearly spelled out within it. It’s probably easier to ignore abolishing birthright citizenship without a written constitution. That said, the Supreme Court just barely upheld the principle even though they cannot overturn any part of the constitution by judicial fiat. The current regime and their sycophants are still coming for birthright citizenship and have already gutted other established law such as the Voting Rights Act. So, I don’t agree that democracy is stronger here than in the UK. It’s very much hanging by a thread if not already broken.

  9. Harriet says:

    Yeah, I can already smell the backlash of this judgment.
    NO ONE believes that the DM were innocent of all 97 counts.
    Harry should appeal and get a new judge.

    The post-judgement commentary is very telling; even the media know the judgement is wrong and are trying desperately to convince the public that it was a fair ruling. However, most are just making this an indictment of Harry. One even says that this means that Harry can’t come home again…

    Ironically, the whole Sussex security kerfuffle labelled the establishment as bad-faith players willing to bend the rules to favour the elite. The public is now seeing how the king intervenes in RAVEC and now legal cases, and this judge.

    They overplayed their hand by dismissing all 97 counts.
    Hopefully, the calls for Levenson II get louder.

  10. kirk says:

    Thanks so much for printing this. There was somebody on here yesterday (similar story) who was crowing about insufficiency of evidence — can’t find the comment now, hope it got deleted. Anyhow, when even Reuters runs a headline of “Prince Harry’s war with UK press is over, and he’s lost” without once mentioning Nicklin’s prior position advocating for Mirror group when they were found guilty of privacy violations (phone hacking) in 2015, and minimizing Harry’s prior media lawsuit wins, it’s a bit much. I was surprised to see Reuters release such a highly opinionated article —makes them look like part of the brittabloidsphere, rather than the factual, unbiased reporting they had been known for. Apparently, they’re willing to be part of BRFCo & Assoc.

    As long as it’s ok to indulge editorial content, I found this article interesting, and no I’m not interested in any of Nicklin’s 436 pages of self-justifications – https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/here-s-how-it-all-went-wrong-in-harry-s-creepy-hacking-case-no-wonder-he-s-furious-20260708-p60dhn.html

  11. Digital Unicorn says:

    Am not a UK lawyer but given the conflict of interest with the Judge surely they can appeal and get this decision thrown out due to clear judicial bias.

    Dacre is just as evil as Murdoch and should be treated as such.

  12. Becks1 says:

    Fantastic statement, and I love that they called out the judge’s bias (because there has to be bias there, i’m sorry.)

    The RRs are obsessed with this visit from Harry, they were all waiting for him outside Chatham House, lmao.

  13. Jay says:

    “The judge on this case, Justice Matthew Nicklin, was the Mirror Group’s defense attorney WHEN HARRY SUED THE MIRROR.” I just did a spit take with my orange juice. WTF? Having previously defended one of the parties seems like a reason to recuse yourself as judge in the case, my god.

    Why is it that Charles felt that the monarch should rescind his earlier invitation for Harry to stay at BP in order to appear “impartial” but it’s totally fine for the actual judge to have been employed by the defendants???

  14. Lady Digby says:

    BBC news reporting today!:
    The Associated Newspapers case was different from what went before in several ways.

    The judge made it harder for the claimants to win by insisting they prove conclusively that every newspaper story was obtained unlawfully, rather than allowing “generic evidence” about the “propensity” of journalists to break the rules.

    The evidence was also gathered in questionable ways, the judge found.

    Some crucial documents and witnesses were obtained in return for money by Graham Johnson, a former phone-hacking journalist turned campaigner for press standards.

    He paid private investigators for information, telling the BBC this week that this was so he could write online news stories about the scandal. The use of the information for evidence came later.

    This was “unconvincing”, the judge found. He decided that Johnson knew his work was both for the purposes of journalism and winning a court case.

    One of those paid, the private investigator Gavin Burrows, seemed to have entered two statements. One said he carried out widespread unlawful activities for the Mail newspapers, and another said that he had done nothing of the sort.

    For the judge, the statements cancelled each other out, and he decided he could not rely on what Burrows said.

  15. Jais says:

    Wow, I did not know that about the judge. And yes, insufficient evidence was cited but umm the evidence seemed convincing to me. Those journalists wrote some truly disgusting stories, in particular the ones about Sadie Frost by Nicholls. Anyways, Harry and the rest can hold their heads high bc they fought the good fight. Good luck to the rest of the royals who will be worse off for this. Bc the DM cannot wait to write about them and their kids as they grow up in the public eye. And good luck to the regular people who get written about by the DM with no recourse.

  16. YankeeDoodles says:

    Another fact that I only read this morning: the private “investigator” who was initially willing to testify to his own part in the illegal surveillance and stalking — who later recanted and reversed himself — testified in this trial “by video from an undisclosed location” which is…. Judicially and logically astonishing. What if he was in Paul Dacre’s basement being tortured or held incommunicado until his testimony, under threats to his life, or family on the outside? Like a mafia vendetta. I mean. I exaggerate, but only to make the point as to why this would never fly in a normal setting. He’s not in witness protection, this was a civil not a criminal case, AFAIK, he’s not turning state’s evidence, he’s backing up his former employer. And — surprising no one — he and they deny they did anything untoward. What’s to say he’s not being paid for reversing himself? If he’s still under contract to Dacre et al, any payments he receives for throwing the case will be a) private and confidential; and b) easily disguised as normal income. The whole thing *reeks* of a bad stitch-up. I don’t mean this as pure cynicism, but the British used to be classy and sophisticated about playing the game, and tilting the table juuuuust enough to win once in a blue moon, but not every round, and not for high stakes *every* time. They used to have finesse. Now? It’s like… the printer is broken, the palace is out of rooms (???), the judge was the defendants’ lawyer, the witness is in a location undisclosed, via video, I mean…. What’s next????? It’s almost funny. LOL.

  17. Brassy Rebel says:

    Obvious question: why didn’t Harry’s legal team move to remove this “judge” for a very blatant conflict of interest? Surely, conflict of interest is recognized in the British legal system.

  18. Cathy says:

    “Judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (who were represented by, at the time, the Judge who made this decision).”

    Conflict of interest, why was this not brought up? There’s a case here just on this point alone.

  19. Jan says:

    That is crazy corruption. How was the former defense attorney being a current judge in this matter not a glaring conflict.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment