Why in Prince Harry, the Mail’s publishers have finally met their match
By Juliet Shaw
As Prince Harry continues his court battle with the British media, Associated Newspapers
awaits the result of its own case. The Duke of Sussex’s action against the publisher of the
Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online is being considered by Mr Justice Nicklin, with a
decision expected in the coming weeks.
This high-profile case has the potential to expose a rotten culture at the core of the UKs
most complained-about newspaper publisher. The judge, who heard arguments from both sides in March, will decide whether the claims brought by Harry, together with Baroness Doreen Lawrence OBE, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, and ex Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes, should proceed to trial.
And this time, the case won’t just decide whether a headline-grabbing article breached the
law, as in the successful claim brought by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Neither is it a self-
serving action to protect the privacy of rich celebrities.
If Mr Justice Nicklin dismisses the application to strike out the claim, the trial will examine
the practices of Associated Newspapers and make public its treatment of people who find
themselves on the wrong side of a story.
Shocking allegations
Court documents show that the seven claimants allege a shocking list of unlawful practices.
They include: “… illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening into live landline calls, obtaining private information (such as itemised phone bills or medical records) by deception or ‘blagging’, using private investigators to commit these unlawful information gathering acts on their behalf, and even commissioning the breaking and entry into private property.”
Associated Newspapers says the claims are “unsubstantiated and highly defamatory,” and
“based on no credible evidence.” The publisher has applied to have the case struck out,
saying that the claims – which cover allegations as far back as 1993 – are time barred under
the six-year statute of limitations. “The claimants have failed to show that they have a real prospect of discharging their burden at trial and the court should not hesitate to dismiss these stale claims at an early stage, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a considerable waste of time, costs and the court’s resources,” the publisher’s barrister, Adrian Beltrami KC, argued in written submissions to the court.
Deny and attack
Those of us unfortunate enough to have been entangled with Mail titles know that it’s part of
their modus operandi to repeatedly deny wrongdoing until the claimant gives up, or to throw money at every legal stalling tactic available – knowing most people are highly unlikely to have the same resources.
As someone who has been through this process first hand, I can confirm that it is stressful,
exhausting and intimidating. Even without the legal fees – I represented myself – there is a
huge price to pay in terms of time and the financial, physical and emotional resources
required to bring a claim to court.
In one astonishing case spanning 25 years, Mr Justice Nicklin described Associated
Newspaper’s arguments as a “comprehensive and wide-ranging attack” on businessman
Michael Ward. In a scathing judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin noted: “Mr Ward, the Claimant, is acting in person. He has dealt, admirably, with a further comprehensive attack on his statement of case, renewed by a new Leading Counsel instructed by the Defendant. Save in the limited
respects identified below, this further attack has been unsuccessful.”
Ineffective regulation
The complaints-handler IPSO doesn’t provide much comfort for claimants.
In 2021, a total of 971 complaints were made to IPSO about Associated Newspapers titles.
Mail Online topped the list with 665, the Daily Mail received 238 and the Mail on Sunday
had 68. For context, The Sun received the third highest number of complaints against a
single title, with 176.
Of all the complaints, IPSO upheld only six. However, this doesn’t mean that 968 complaints
were spurious and unwarranted. It simply means that the odds are heavily stacked against
the complainant. IPSO’s rulings are decided by its Complaints Committee – half of whom are current or former newspaper editors. The committee decides whether the words complained about are in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice.
One-sided process
The Code, developed by a committee of 10 editors and three independent laypeople, sets
out 16 clauses for editors to abide by, including accuracy, privacy, and the use of
harassment or clandestine devices to gather information. It also provides for public interest
reporting, in which cases breaches of the clauses may be justified by editors.
The chairman of IPSO, Lord Faulks, says of its regulatory supervision:
In applying the Editors’ Code, we endeavour to strike a balance between the interest of those with justified complaints and the interests of a free, vigorous but accountable press. We hope this approach has the support of all political parties, and of the general public.
In 2021, IPSO received a total of 14,355 complaints. Only 461 of these were investigated as
potential breaches of the Editor’s Code, with just 88 complaints upheld. With a success rate
of 0.61 per cent, complainants may be forgiven for thinking this system does not provide the
fair balance Lord Faulks claims.
Means and motive
This is why the claims brought by Harry and the other claimants are significant: they have
the means and the motive to see this through to the bitter end and hold Associated
Newspapers to account. This case has the potential to expose a widespread culture of disdain for readers and the public – and this time, no amount of money in the legal budget can make it disappear.
@JulietShawComms is a writer and communications strategist