Prince Harry has filed a legal claim against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) after the newspaper published a story following a hearing in the duke’s separate High Court claim over his security arrangements while in the UK. The article was published in February with the headline: ‘Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal battle with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then – minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the controversy.’ Image: Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend Jubilee Service of Thanksgiving At a hearing in June, Mr Justice Nicklin was asked to determine the “natural and ordinary” meaning of parts of the article in the claim and whether they were defamatory. It has now found that certain parts of the article were indeed defamatory, finding that they gave the reader the impression that Prince Harry was deliberately trying to mislead the public. Discussing one of the meanings of the article, Mr Justice Nicklin said that a reader would believe that Harry “was responsible for public statements, issued on his behalf, which claimed that he was willing to pay for police protection in the United Kingdom and that his legal challenge was to the Government’s refusal to allow him to do so, whereas the true position, as disclosed in the documents filed in the legal proceedings, was that he had only offered to pay after the proceedings had commenced.’ He also said the article would have been read as an allegation that Harry “was responsible for trying to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now had a public role in tackling ‘disinformation’”. Mr Justice Nicklin added: “It may be possible to ‘spin’ facts in a way that is not misleading, but the allegation made in the article was very much that the aim was to mislead the public.” He concluded: “This provides the necessary element to make the meanings defamatory at common law.” Before the ruling, Harry’s lawyers had argued that the article was defamatory and meant Harry had “lied”, had “inappropriately and cynically” tried to manipulate public opinion and “tried to keep his legal battle with the government from the public. “. Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Harry, had said: “Allegations that a person lied to the public, manipulated the public and tried to keep a secret which should be public are serious ones which tend to diminish him in the eyes of right-thinking people. People.” ANL lawyers had argued that the article did not allege that Prince Harry’s PR team had “cast an unduly favorable light on the plaintiff” or “accused them of dishonesty”. Pictured: The Sussexes and their children were in the UK in June. Photo by Misan Harriman This decision is only the first stage in the Duke of Sussex’s defamation claim against ANL and the publisher is now set to present its defense in the case. Mr Justice Nicklin said in his judgment: “The decision reached in this judgment is solely about the objective meaning of the article published by the defendant for the purposes of the plaintiff’s claim for defamation. “This is very much the first phase in a libel claim. “The next step will be for the defendant to file a defense to the claim. “It will be a matter to be determined later in the proceedings whether the claim succeeds or fails, and if so on what basis.” Prince Harry, who lives in Montecito, California, with Meghan Markle and their children Archie and Lilybet, returned to the UK last month to celebrate the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. The family celebrated Lilibet’s first birthday with a party at her former home in Windsor, Frogmore Cottage.
