Prince Harry's phone hacking case against the Daily Mail is dismissed in full

By SAM GREENHILL, THE CHIEF REPORTER and MARTIN ROBINSON, CHIEF REPORTER Published: 14:09, 7 July 2026 | Updated: 14:28, 7 July 2026 The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other celebrities against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full.  The case brought by the Duke of Sussex and six fellow claimants, also including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, was heard at a three-month trial at London's High Court at the beginning of this year. The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, accepted that every article complained about was lawfully sourced. The claim was brought against publisher Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. In an executive summary of his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said: 'Associated called journalist witnesses who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents. 'The Court accepted their evidence, including their denials of UIG [unlawful information gathering]. The £50million phone hacking case brought by Prince Harry (pictured today), Doreen Lawrence and a raft of other celebrities against the publishers of the Daily Mail was today dismissed in full 'The allegations were serious: they included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.'  An Associated Newspapers spokesman said: 'Associated Newspapers welcomes today's judgement, which is an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally. 'Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists' evidence on how they sourced their stories. 'This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail's journalism. 'For some of the most outrageous allegations made when the case was launched in a blaze of publicity four years ago – placing bugs in people's cars and homes, listening to calls as they were made and illicitly accessing bank accounts - no credible evidence was ever presented. 'As we said at the time, these allegations were "lurid" and "preposterous", and were a fishing expedition by the claimants and their legal teams in a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press. 'The reputations of our decent and hard-working journalists were terribly impugned, and today they have been exonerated. 'As the judgement clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced. 'Associated Newspapers thanks Mr Justice Nicklin for the patience and wisdom he has displayed throughout this misguided legal action, which has wasted so much valuable court time and more than £50m in legal costs. 'We will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.'