Harry wins one legal battle, loses another

Harry wanted a summary judgment in his fight with Fleet Street, but the judge the case must be heard. Photo: Getty
Prince Harryâs libel case against the Mail on Sunday newspaper over an article about his security arrangements must go to trial, a judge at Londonâs High Court has ruled, rejecting his attempts to have the publisherâs defence thrown out.
Harry, King Charlesâ younger son, sued publisher Associated Newspapers last year over a February 2022 article alleged he offered to pay for police protection only after bringing a separate legal fight against the British government.
The report also accused Harry, 39, of attempting to mislead the public about his willingness to pay for the policing, which was withdrawn after he stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
Harry applied to have the newspaper groupâs defence thrown out, with his lawyers arguing in March that Harry first offered to pay for police protection at a crisis meeting with the late Queen Elizabeth, his father and brother Prince William at the royal Sandringham estate in January 2020.
Associatedâs lawyers, however, said the publisher had a strong defence and argued that a statement issued by Harryâs representatives before Associatedâs article was published had falsely claimed the government had refused Harryâs offer to pay for police protection.
Judge Matthew Nicklin said in a written ruling that Associatedâs defence had a real prospect of success at trial, which he said was likely to take place in 2024.
Defenceâs legal merit
The judge added that Associated is âentitled to seek to prove, as a fact, that (Harry) had not made an offer to pay for his state security to the governmentâ before he brought his separate legal challenge.
Nicklin also said Associated had a real prospect of showing at trial that statements issued on Harryâs behalf about his case against the government were misleading.
Fridayâs decision comes a day after Harryâs legal challenge against the governmentâs decision to withdraw his police protection, which his lawyers argue is unfair, concluded.
A ruling in that case is not expected until a later date.
-AAP
Want to see more stories from The New Daily in your Google search results?
- Click here to set The New Daily as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "The New Daily". That's it.








