Why did the biggest privacy trial of the century fail?

Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants took on the Daily Mail in one of the biggest privacy cases in recent history and lost. The seven claimants alleged that Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, had spent decades illegally gathering their private information. After a 46-day trial, every single claim was dismissed.

For the Duke of Sussex, this was a heavy defeat. He had previously won a Judgment against Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023 and settled with News Group Newspapers in 2025. He has publicly called this ruling a “whitewash”; an appeal seems likely.

The claims

The claimants said Associated Newspapers had misused their private information through unlawful methods including phone hacking, voicemail interception, and “blagging”, which means obtaining information through deception. They also claimed journalists had paid private investigators to gather information illegally.

The claims have covered around 50 specific articles published between 1997 and 2015, covering everything from the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation to Prince Harry’s personal relationships.

Associated Newspapers denied everything, arguing that journalism relied on legitimate sources such as friends, aides and publicists.

Three years of case management

The case was filed in late 2022. In November 2023, the judge refused to throw it out early and ruled that key questions needed to go to a full trial.

Before the trial even started, both sides said they combined a budget of £38.8 million, which the court described as excessive. The budgets were cut by roughly £4.1 million for the claimants and £4.4 million for the associated.

The court has also made clear that this was a civil case about specific articles, not a general investigation into press culture. That decision alone has proved crucial.

Why the claims failed: the evidential architecture

There were four main reasons why every claim was dismissed.

First, the burden of proof. The claimants had to prove each allegation on the balance of probabilities. Given how serious the allegations were the criminal conduct and journalists lying under oath the evidence needed to be particularly strong.

Secondly, the claims had to be specific. General arguments about the Daily Mail’s culture were not enough. Each article needed its own evidence showing it was obtained through illegal means.

Third, the limits of interference. The judge has said you cannot simply assume that illegal activity took place. Suspicion alone is not proof. Evidence must demonstrate wrongdoing rather than just suggest it might have happened.

Fourthly, alternative explanations: where the Daily Mail could show that information might realistically have come from a legitimate source, a friend, publicist or material already in the public domain, the court would not conclude it must have been obtained illegally.

The Whittemore problem

Much of the claimants’ case relied on Steve Whittamore, a private investigator convicted in 2005 of data protection offences. He described running a “blagging service” and said Associated Newspapers were his best customers until 2007.

Despite this, his evidence wasn’t enough. The judge said a general claim that journalists “must have known” about illegal methods couldn’t prove the state of mind of any specific individual on any specific occasion. His evidence only had value where it could be directly linked to a specific article, and those links were not established.

The “Leveson Lies” and limitation

The claimants also agreed that three associated witnesses, including former editor Paul Dacre, had knowingly lied to the Leveson Inquiry. This claim failed. The judge found that the allegations were not properly proved and criticised the claimants for making such serious accusations without sufficient evidence.

What happens next

A hearing is scheduled for 29-20 July 2026 to deal with costs and any appeal application. Prince Harry has made clear he intends to challenge the ruling. Associated Newspapers has called the outcome a complete victory for its journalists.

Comments

This case offers three important lessons. First, serious allegations must be proved article by article; a compelling general narrative is not enough. Secondly, propensity evidence has strict limits in civil courts. Thirdly, different defendants can produce very different outcomes even on similar facts, such as News Group settled, Mirror Group lost at trial and Associated fought on.

Whether the Court of Appeal will be asked to reconcile those outcomes remains to be seen.

If you have a privacy, media or reputation issue, please contact Michael Coyle at Lawdit Solicitors on 023 8023 5979 or michael.coyle@lawdit.co.uk.

By Shantal Remzi, a law student at Solent Southampton University