Mail on Sunday article on Prince Harry was defamatory, High Court rules

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday for libel over a February article about a dispute over his family's security arrangements. Photo / Getty Images

Prince Harry was defamed by parts of a Mail on Sunday article about his security row, a High Court has ruled in the first stage of a libel trial.

The Duke of Sussex is suing over a story which said that he had tried to keep "secret" parts of his legal fight with the Home Office and attempted to "spin" the dispute in his favour by claiming he had offered to pay for police protection.

In the first ruling on the case, Justice Matthew Nicklin concluded the article was defamatory in parts because it suggested the Prince's actions were "discreditable" and that he had intended to "mislead the public".

But the High Court judge noted that this was "very much the first phase" of the libel claim and the Mail on Sunday can now file its defence.

If it could prove the comments were true, an honestly held opinion or a publication on a matter of public interest, it will not have been found to have libelled the Prince, legal experts said on Friday UK time.

The Telegraph understands that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the owner of the Mail on Sunday, is now preparing to submit evidence setting out why it stands by its claims.

The case revolves around an article published in February, following the first hearing in the Duke's separate High Court claim against the Government's decision to withdraw the police protection that he and the Duchess of Sussex enjoyed as senior working royals.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex enjoyed police protection while they were working royals. Photo / Getty Images

The piece set out that when news of the legal battle with the Government first broke in January last year the Duke's PR team put out statements saying that he had offered to "pay personally for UK police protection" but it was refused.

When that case was before the High Court earlier this year, the Home Office revealed that they did not receive any such offer, either before the Prince visited the UK or in the immediate correspondence which followed. An offer to pay is included in the Prince's witness statement.

The Mail on Sunday headline read: "How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret... then - just minutes after the story broke - his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute."

The Duke is suing, claiming the story suggests that he lied and had "improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion".

His interpretation was disputed by the newspaper and at a preliminary hearing in June, and Justice Nicklin was asked to determine the "natural and ordinary" meaning of the article and whether it was defamatory.

He ruled on Friday that a normal reader would understand from the article that the Duke "was responsible for public statements" which set out that he "was willing to pay for police protection in the UK" and the Government had refused "whereas the true position, as revealed in documents filed in the legal proceedings, was that he had only made the offer to pay after the proceedings had commenced".

The judge found that the suggestion in the article that the Prince "was responsible for trying to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling 'misinformation"' was a statement of opinion.

Judgment could make it a 'harder road' for Prince's legal team

Mark Stephens, a solicitor specialising in defamation, said the ruling that it was an opinion gave the newspaper a defence and meant it was "more likely to win" on that point.

He noted the judge had also found a "less serious" meaning than the Duke alleged as he ruled the article accused him of "spinning" rather than lying.

Stephens added: "Harry was the winner in this ruling, but the meaning that the judge found was ultimately closer to that submitted by the newspaper.

"I think that this judgment will make it a harder road for his legal team."

The Duke's claim against the Government on issues relating to his security is ongoing and on Thursday his lawyers asked the High Court to grant permission for a full judicial review. A decision on whether this claim can proceed will be given at a later date.